조선시대 마을의 위상과 마을 연구의 과제 = Status of the Chosŏn Period Villages, and Future Tasks for Village Studies

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 글은 현재의 마을공동체 논의 속에 정작 우리의 전통 마을의 실체에 대한 이해가 불분명하다는 문제의식에서 조선시대 마을과 촌락사회 연구의 현황과 과제를 살펴보기 위해 준비되었다. 주요 분석 대상은 1980년대 이후 축적된 역사학계의 향촌사회사 연구의 성과이다.
연구 결과를 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째 조선시대 자연촌의 성장, 확산의 과정 속에서 마을 또한 규모와 인구 면에서 끊임없이 유동하는 존재였다는 것이다. 조선후기부터 20세기초까지 洞里의 숫자가 지속적으로 증가했다는 통계 자료는 그러한 상황을 잘 보여주는데, 마을 연구에서는 시기에 따른 변화를 염두에 두어야 함을 의미한다.
둘째, 1980년대 지방사회에 대한 관심이 증대하고 향촌사회사 연구가 활성화되면서 우리가 관심을 갖는 촌락ㆍ마을 연구도 적지않은 성과가 이루어졌다는 사실도 확인할 수 있었다. 특히 이해준ㆍ정진영의 연구를 통해 조선시대 촌락의 변화, 촌락 내부의 사회조직과 인적 구성 등에 걸쳐 의미 있는 분석이 이루어짐으로써 촌락 연구사의 토대가 마련됐다.
셋째, 향촌사회사의 많은 연구 성과에도 불구하고 조선시대 마을에 관해서는 여전히 해결해야 할 쟁점과 난제들이 적지 않다고 보았다. 본고에서는 마을ㆍ동리를 공동체로 볼 수 있는가와 관련한 촌락사회 성격 논쟁을 소개하고, 마을 조직인 洞契의 분포와 특성의 문제, 촌락의 발달에 따른 마을 역사 이해의 문제 등을 핵심 쟁점으로 꼽았다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article is conceived with a perspective that, despite the fact that studies of village communities have continued to be announced and accumulated in recent years, understanding of our traditional villages on the other hand are still severely limited and remains unclear to this date. Hence, the author’s intention was to examine the current status of academic studies focusing on village and county societies that existed during the Chosŏn period, and also ascertain what must be done in future studies. Studies by historians from the 1980s dealing with local social history are primarily examined here.
First, in the author’s opinion, recent studies have revealed that the natural villages of the Chosŏn period continued to grow and expand, and their perimeters and population size was in constant state of flux. Statistics show that since the second half of the Chosŏn period, and through the early 20th century, the number of Dong’ri (洞里, counties) continued to rise, which let us realize that in village studies change that occurs over time should be duly taken into account.
Secondly, in the 1980s it seems like the scholars’ interest in local societies increased, which in turn invigorated local social historical studies and led to numerous accomplishments that would help us better understand the villages and counties we came to love and know. What should be noted in particular are the studies from Lee Hae-jun and Jeong Jin-yeong, who laid out the foundation for village studies by presenting meaningful observations on issues such as the changes in villages, or the internal composition of those villages in terms of hierarchy structure or population layout.
Thirdly, although there have been so many achievements in this particular branch of studies, there are still many issues regarding Chosŏn period villages and counties that are yet to be properly discussed or illuminated enough. Some of them are tough ones that would need some extra effort to adequately address them. To that end, first introduced in this article is the ongoing debate on the village communities’ nature and identity, which posed a question of whether or not villages and counties should be perceived as communities. Then discussed next are impending tasks regarding certain topics such as the distribution pattern of Dong’gye (洞契, aid groups) throughout the country as the most visible type of village organization, their characteristics, and how to understand the villages’ history in terms of their development.