역사가와 그의 시대(1): 김인석과 제5공화국 군사독재시대

Abstract

The article endeavors to reconsider the complex relationship between historian and his era and to examine the nature and legacy of intellectuals’ engagement by focusing the case of In-Sok Kim (1945-1998). Kim entered into History Department of Korea University in 1963 and achieved the Ph. D degree in 1979. He started his teaching career at Hyoseoung Women’s University in Daegu until 1985. During 1980-1983 he researched abroad in Max Plank Institute of Göttingen thanks to the support of Konrad Adenauer Foundation. He moved to Chung-Ang University at Seoul in 1985 and taught there almost 10 years until 1995. In 1998, three years after the involuntary retirement, In-Sok Kim passed away probably due to Cirrhosis. Kim’s scholarly life overlapped with military dictatorship of the Fifth Republic of Korea and also with a transitional era from that regime to civilian government. Kim was a historian who specialized in modern German historicism and an unique example of intellectual who intermingled his scholarship with art and heavy drink. In the first half of the article, authors analyze Kim’s written works concerning modern German historiography. The second half of the article tries to disclose an inner world of Kim known as ‘the last romanticist of the century’ by conducting interviews with his acquaintances and interpreting his unpublished poems. Kim’s works primarily deal with German historicism of Friedrich Meinecke. Kim appraised Meinecke as “a successor, supporter, developer of German modern historiography since Ranke” and “a bridge between traditional modern historiography and the socio-economic history and cultural history.” He also points out that Meinecke reappraised Burckhardt’s cultural history in positive ways. According to Kim’s opinion, Meinecke was not interested in changing the world as a conservative and had played an important role in supporting Prussian militarism. Kim insists that German historians of both Weimar Republic and Nazi era had collaborated with the totalitarian regime of Hitler. Also, Kim was the first scholar who introduced Koselleck’s concept history to Korea in 1988. By keeping trace of western concept of ‘citizen’, Kim might be trying to anticipate the process from obedient ‘subject’ into rebellious ‘citizen’ for Koreans, who experienced the changes from authoritarian polity to democratic reform after 1987. On the other hand, authors conducted a kind of oral history by interviewing his two ex-colleagues in order to get a closer portrait of Kim’s personal life. Based on several episodes testified by interviewees, authors notice that Kim has expressed his resistant spirit as a form of absurdity both in scholarship and everyday life. Journalism documented Kim’s hunger strikes against the murder of an innocent college student by police in 1991. In 1995 Kim protested again against the civilian government’s decision to forgive the military personnels who were responsible for the “Gwang-Ju Incident” occurred in 1980. Both interviewees agree that Kim was not simply an ordinary historian but also an eccentric artist. He left behind him over one hundred pieces of poem and a few paintings. These creative works illustrate well his resistant spirit and romantic sensibility to nature and alcohol. In conclusion, In-Sok Kim’s story raises a number of intriguing questions that are worth meditating. First, there seems to exist a respectful consistence between the scholarly achievements and the personal life of Kim. Second, his frequent escape to heavy drinking and isolated way of demonstration against authoritarian government played a decisive role in expelling him from the college. Thus, the limit or the failure of Kim’s unique model of engagement teaches us the importance of solidarity between intellectuals and people and the indispensability of intellectual stoicism. Third, this case study focused on In-Sok Kim encourages us to reappraise the complex and dialectic relationship between historians and their ages. Unlike Kim, who lived and in a sense enjoyed the atmosphere of the ‘belle-époque’ which tolerated the unbalance mixture of scholarship and alcoholism, most historians nowadays have degenerated into salaried men, who struggle to produce articles as many as possible and at same time to teach and discipline students well. It is indeed a critical moment for us to reshuffle and rearrange the entangled ties between historians and their times.

The article endeavors to reconsider the complex relationship between historian and his era and to examine the nature and legacy of intellectuals’ engagement by focusing the case of In-Sok Kim (1945-1998). Kim entered into History Department of Korea University in 1963 and achieved the Ph. D degree in 1979. He started his teaching career at Hyoseoung Women’s University in Daegu until 1985. During 1980-1983 he researched abroad in Max Plank Institute of Göttingen thanks to the support of Konrad Adenauer Foundation. He moved to Chung-Ang University at Seoul in 1985 and taught there almost 10 years until 1995. In 1998, three years after the involuntary retirement, In-Sok Kim passed away probably due to Cirrhosis. Kim’s scholarly life overlapped with military dictatorship of the Fifth Republic of Korea and also with a transitional era from that regime to civilian government. Kim was a historian who specialized in modern German historicism and an unique example of intellectual who intermingled his scholarship with art and heavy drink. In the first half of the article, authors analyze Kim’s written works concerning modern German historiography. The second half of the article tries to disclose an inner world of Kim known as ‘the last romanticist of the century’ by conducting interviews with his acquaintances and interpreting his unpublished poems. Kim’s works primarily deal with German historicism of Friedrich Meinecke. Kim appraised Meinecke as “a successor, supporter, developer of German modern historiography since Ranke” and “a bridge between traditional modern historiography and the socio-economic history and cultural history.” He also points out that Meinecke reappraised Burckhardt’s cultural history in positive ways. According to Kim’s opinion, Meinecke was not interested in changing the world as a conservative and had played an important role in supporting Prussian militarism. Kim insists that German historians of both Weimar Republic and Nazi era had collaborated with the totalitarian regime of Hitler. Also, Kim was the first scholar who introduced Koselleck’s concept history to Korea in 1988. By keeping trace of western concept of ‘citizen’, Kim might be trying to anticipate the process from obedient ‘subject’ into rebellious ‘citizen’ for Koreans, who experienced the changes from authoritarian polity to democratic reform after 1987. On the other hand, authors conducted a kind of oral history by interviewing his two ex-colleagues in order to get a closer portrait of Kim’s personal life. Based on several episodes testified by interviewees, authors notice that Kim has expressed his resistant spirit as a form of absurdity both in scholarship and everyday life. Journalism documented Kim’s hunger strikes against the murder of an innocent college student by police in 1991. In 1995 Kim protested again against the civilian government’s decision to forgive the military personnels who were responsible for the “Gwang-Ju Incident” occurred in 1980. Both interviewees agree that Kim was not simply an ordinary historian but also an eccentric artist. He left behind him over one hundred pieces of poem and a few paintings. These creative works illustrate well his resistant spirit and romantic sensibility to nature and alcohol. In conclusion, In-Sok Kim’s story raises a number of intriguing questions that are worth meditating. First, there seems to exist a respectful consistence between the scholarly achievements and the personal life of Kim. Second, his frequent escape to heavy drinking and isolated way of demonstration against authoritarian government played a decisive role in expelling him from the college. Thus, the limit or the failure of Kim’s unique model of engagement teaches us the importance of solidarity between intellectuals and people and the indispensability of intellectual stoicism. Third, this case study focused on In-Sok Kim encourages us to reappraise the complex and dialectic relationship between historians and their ages. Unlike Kim, who lived and in a sense enjoyed the atmosphere of the ‘belle-époque’ which tolerated the unbalance mixture of scholarship and alcoholism, most historians nowadays have degenerated into salaried men, who struggle to produce articles as many as possible and at same time to teach and discipline students well. It is indeed a critical moment for us to reshuffle and rearrange the entangled ties between historians and their times.