가지무라 히데키(梶村秀樹, 1935-89)의 연구 과제나 방법적 시점의 변천을 이해하기 위해서는 20세기 후반 일본의 사회과학, 그 중에서도 ‘전후 역사학(戰後 歷史學)’이라 불리는 학문 운동에 대한 이해가 필요하다. 본고는 앞서 발표한 바 있는 사학사적 연구(史學史的 硏究)를 바탕으로 가지무라의 근대 조선사 연구가 동시대 일본의 역사 연구 동향 안에서 지니는 위상을 재검토하고자 한다. 가지무라는 전후 역사학 운동을 견인한 역사학 연구회(歷史學 硏究會)가 1960년대 동아시아세계론을 제기하는 과정에서 중요한 역할을 담당했고, 이때의 문제의식을 자신의 조선사 연구에서도 활용했다. 또한 1970년대 후반 이후의 가지무라가 민중사 구상을 심화시킨 배경으로는 동시대 한국의 민중운동으로부터 받은 자극과 더불어 같은 시기 일본 역사학의 중요 흐름인 인민 투쟁사(人民鬪爭史) 연구 및 민중 사상사(民衆思想史) 연구의 융성을 지적할 수 있다. 이를 바탕으로 가지무라는 죽음 직전까지 방법적 시좌의 자기 혁신을 꾀했으며 국가와 민중이라는 두 문제에 초점을 맞춰 조선 근대사의 전체상(全體像)을 추구하고자 했다. 이런 점들을 사학사적으로 검토함으로써, 가지무라가 주장한 ‘내재적 발전론(內在的 發展論)’의 심화가 일본이나 세계의 역사학 동향과 어떻게 연관되어 있었는지를 밝히고, 자칫 조선사 안에 갇힌 체계로 이해될 수도 있는 가지무라의 역사학을 그것이 수행한 사학사적 의의 더 나아가 오늘날 되짚어보아야 할 의미가 무엇인지를 살펴볼 것이다.

It is necessary to understand the Japanese social science in the late 20th century, especially the academic movement called ‘post-war historiography(전후 역사학)’, to capture the changes of Kajimura’s research agenda and methodical viewpoint. I set the Kajimura’s research on the modern history of Korea against the background of Japanese research on history and tried to review it based on my research on the history of historiography. In fact, Kajimura played an important role in creating the theory of the East Asian world which was presented by the Historical Science Society of Japan(역사학연구회), and utilized it in of his own research on Korean history. Even though it is beyond doubt that he was stimulated by the people’s movement of contemporary Korea, first and foremost, Kajimura would not have been able to develop the conception of the history of the people after the late 1970’s, had he not conducted research on the history of people’s struggle(인민투쟁사) and the history of people’s thought(민중사상사) which were among the big schools of Japanese historiography at the time. Based on these practices, Kajimura tried to innovate his own methodical viewpoint until shortly before his death, and pursued the overall picture of the modern history of Korea which links the two focuses, the state and the people. I determined how Kajimura’s deepening of his immanent development theory was related with the trend of Japanese and world historiography, by tracing above points with the viewpoint of the history of historiography. At the same time, I paid attention to the meaning of Kajimura’s historiography in the context of the history of historiography as well as historiography on Korea, and explained the reason why Kajimura’s historiography should be thought back now.

It is necessary to understand the Japanese social science in the late 20th century, especially the academic movement called ‘post-war historiography(전후 역사학)’, to capture the changes of Kajimura’s research agenda and methodical viewpoint. I set the Kajimura’s research on the modern history of Korea against the background of Japanese research on history and tried to review it based on my research on the history of historiography. In fact, Kajimura played an important role in creating the theory of the East Asian world which was presented by the Historical Science Society of Japan(역사학연구회), and utilized it in of his own research on Korean history. Even though it is beyond doubt that he was stimulated by the people’s movement of contemporary Korea, first and foremost, Kajimura would not have been able to develop the conception of the history of the people after the late 1970’s, had he not conducted research on the history of people’s struggle(인민투쟁사) and the history of people’s thought(민중사상사) which were among the big schools of Japanese historiography at the time. Based on these practices, Kajimura tried to innovate his own methodical viewpoint until shortly before his death, and pursued the overall picture of the modern history of Korea which links the two focuses, the state and the people. I determined how Kajimura’s deepening of his immanent development theory was related with the trend of Japanese and world historiography, by tracing above points with the viewpoint of the history of historiography. At the same time, I paid attention to the meaning of Kajimura’s historiography in the context of the history of historiography as well as historiography on Korea, and explained the reason why Kajimura’s historiography should be thought back now.

post-war historiography, immanent development theory, socio-economic historicism, people's nationalism, the history of popular practice.