植民地朝鮮における「内地人」教員の多様性 : 招聘教員と朝鮮で養成された教員の特徴とその関係

抄録

This paper intends to clarify diversity amongst "Mainlander" (Japanese) teachers in colonial Korea. "Mainlander" (Japanese) teachers were a central presence in elementary schools in colonial Korea that cannot be overlooked when discussing Japanese colonial education policies. Conventional literature on the subject has heretofore clarified such matters as teachers' hometown, transfers, instructional activities, and the like. Results of such studies are keys to clarifying the reality of "Mainlander" teachers. However, understanding of "Mainlanders" who became teachers in colonial Korea should not be limited to only one category, and I problematize this point. Among "Mainlander" teachers in Korea, a variety of people coexisted who can be differentiated by length of stay/career in Korea, presence or lack of experience spent in "the Mainland" (Japan) and gender. The historical reality, therefore, cannot be determined if all teachers in colonial Korea are simply labeled "Mainlander" teachers. Although it goes without saying that we should not overlook the fact that "Mainlanders" as settlers possessed specific positions and roles, at the same time, it is necessary to recognize their internal diversity. Following this outlook, this paper differentiates so-called "Mainlander" teachers by examining the characteristics and relations of "Mainlander" teachers invited from "the Mainland" versus "Mainlander" teachers trained in Korea. First, I pay attention to the teacher-training phase of each, because it is clear that these groups passed through a different process of training. Second, I examine the characteristics and relations of both through document analysis, looking specifically at the times when these individuals became teachers, understandings about educational ideas and policies of the Governor-General's office, knowledge about Korea, and grasp of "the Mainland" were different for each group of teachers. In particular, I argue that these differences originated in differences in the teacher-training process found in Japan and colonial Korea. In addition, I argue that when "Kominka Education" became strongly entrenched, a difference in the characteristics of each type of teacher becomes evident. In addition, I reexamine the implications of the existence of invited teachers from Japan, whose presence had previously been understood as necessary in order to make up for the lack of teachers in colonial Korea.