한국 유교-유학 연구가 지금까지의 발전을 넘어 더욱 높은 수준으로 고양된 학문이 되기 위해 어떤 변화가 요구되는지를 살폈다. 그 중심논점 몇 가지를 예시한다. ① 사상-이론의 의미분석에 머물지 않고 연구대상 시대현실과 연관된 사회정치적 의의를 밝히는 데까지 나아가야 한다. ② 유학연구는 불교와 선도 등을 포괄하는 한국사상사 일반의 연구로 통합되는 것이어야 한다. ③ 유학이 지닌 원천적 한계를 성찰하는 동시에, 거시적 안목과 반성적 태도에 기초하여 유학사상에 담긴 긍정적 요소들을 재구성해내야 한다. ④ 유학연구는 인문학과 지역학의 성격을 아우르는 한국학의 정립으로 나아가야 한다. ⑤ 학문의 영역에서 개방-종합-비판-실천을 모범적으로 구현해온 문화연구-문화학과 서사연구-내러톨로지를 적극적으로 도입해야 한다. 한국유학 연구가 현실과 소통하는 한국학의 정립으로 나아가기 위한 예비작업으로, 문화연구-문화학이 지닌 이론적-실천적 특징들을 검토했다. 개방과 종합, 비판의식과 진보지향, 기존비판이론에 대한 조절과 대안 제시, 객관적 사실에 개입하는 서사주관의 중요성 등에 관해 해명했다. 유학연구가 문화학을 지향할 때 요구되는 이론적-실천적 과제들을 밝히는 한편, 문화학적 방법과 태도에 여전히 남아있는 한계를 지적했다. 본고의 연구는 민족사 정통성 및 민족문화 정체성의 재확립을 추구하는 학문적 노력에 해당한다. 이 글의 논점들에 유의할 때 향후 한국유학 연구는 전통문화유산 계승과 현실 정치문화 발전 사이의 긴장을 밝히고 양자를 절충을 모색하는 데 기여할 것이다. 문화학적 지평을 확보하고 복합학문으로서의 한국학의 정립으로 나아가는 한국유학 연구는 한국에서 출발하고 한국이 매개하는 동북아 문화공동체 건설의 모색, 그리고 글로컬시대에 걸맞는 범인류 수준 미래지향 화합-상생 문화의 창출에 기여할 수 있다.
Research of Korean Confucianism is confronted with some new demands of self-transformation. Not to drop behind remaining old-fashioned, our academic society should, first of all, adapt to the new academic trend of consilience: the unity of knowledge. Hitherto, most treatises on traditional Confucian Philosophy tended to give weight to or put focus on logical analysis of its theories, apart from socio-economic interest and political orientation of the pertaining philosophers of past historical periods. In the traditional era, however, Confucianism had rather been sort of Unified Science, and a Confucian Scholar had been regarded as the Whole Men or a well-rounded person. Now we should succeed such spirit for restoration of our academic works into Praxis Learning. In order to restore the vigor and critical power of traditional thinkers and their ideas, we should give attention to Cultural Studies. Reseachers of traditional Confucianism, especially of Neo-confucianism in Chosun Dynasty, are required to introduce the methodology and rationale of Cultural Studies. Getting out from semantic analysis and syntactical meta-analysis, our study of traditional thoughts needs to come forward to multi-directional and integrative ways of approach. We have to cross over the present compartmental system of closed specialties. Multilateral communications are needed among wide realms of learning, as well as mutual understanding is demanded on the level of branch fields of some particular academic discipline. Confucianism is a constituent part of the Korean History of Ideas. In other words, the Korean tradition of culture encompass still wider range of theories and practices than Confucianism. Buddhism has also exerted a strong influence in the Korean traditional culture from ancient times; Spirit Worship or Spiritism(神明思想, 神仙思想), the unique stream of Korean religious thinking, had had a great deal of influence on life and death of Korean people, with a wider range and longer time-span. Here arises the demand of reassessing the main streams of traditional schools of thought. In short, research of Korean Confucianism is to be integrated, as a sub-unit, into Korean Studies that makes the whole body of investigating and expounding various issues. My point here is that Confucianism definitely comes under the major schools of traditional thought, yet nevertheless it may not be the most powerful branch of thinking in Korean History of Culture. Fusion of researches of Korean Confucianism with Cultural Studies will contribute to bring forth a firmly founded academic discipline of Korea Studies. To expound the complicated body of society and history both on the levels of comprehensiveness and concreteness, I suggest that we make up a common foundation of various fields of academic investigation. What part of learning you may belong as a scholar, you had better have some basic understanding of the whole academic arena, especially in respect of methodological principle and macro history of paradigmatic theories. Humanities and aesthetics, social and natural sciences ─ in short, all parts of knowledge production, should meet and communicate to make up consilience, the unity of knowledge. Today we live in an age of collective intellect that makes traditional classification of science hardly valid, and that is building up (within some sphere) a sterical body of knowledge concrete and comprehensive.