EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This article examines five great classical composers—Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Frédéric Chopin, and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky—to explain how distinctive talents, sustained efforts, and enabling support ecosystems contribute to enduring musical greatness. Drawing on the Scope–Scale Framework, the analysis distinguishes the breadth and longevity of influence (scope) from the magnitude of artistic achievement and historical impact (scale), while considering how musical legacies expand across generations. The five composers illustrate different pathways to enduring excellence: Bach through foundational mastery and posthumous amplification, Mozart through versatility and broad influence, Beethoven through transformational innovation, Chopin through specialized depth and global diffusion, and Tchaikovsky through emotional accessibility and worldwide reach. The article demonstrates that lasting greatness emerges not from talent alone but from the interaction of disciplined development, institutional support, cultural transmission, and enduring artistic relevance. Beyond classical music, these insights offer broader lessons for understanding sustainable excellence and lasting legacy in leadership, science, business, education, sports, and the arts.

Keywords: Classical composers; Enduring excellence; Scope–Scale Framework; Support ecosystems; Musical legacy

1. Introduction

Kevin Reilly brings a lifetime of professional experience in classical music as a pianist, conductor, composer, and educator. Trained at the Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University, he served for many years on the music faculty at the University of Toledo, teaching music history and piano, directing choral performances, mentoring young musicians, and composing sacred music. Through these diverse experiences, he has observed how the works of great composers transcend their historical origins, remaining alive through continuous performance, interpretation, education, and appreciation. His professional perspective provides a foundation for understanding how musical excellence is cultivated, preserved, and transmitted across generations.

Paul C. Hong’s appreciation for classical music began as a member of the brass band at Seoul High School (서울고등학교) in South Korea, where rehearsals five days a week before and after classes instilled discipline, teamwork, and dedication to musical excellence. Through intensive practice of overtures, marches, and classical masterpieces, he developed a lifelong admiration for composers whose works continue to inspire audiences worldwide. His musical interests have continued through attending orchestral performances and listening closely to recordings of classical masters. These experiences complement his academic research on leadership, innovation, institutional transformation, and enduring excellence, particularly the ways in which individual achievement develops into lasting historical influence.

Drawing upon these complementary musical and academic perspectives, the authors explore a central question: Why do certain composers continue to inspire global audiences centuries after their deaths? Musical genius alone cannot fully explain such enduring prominence, as some composers transformed established musical traditions while others achieved extraordinary distinction through versatility, specialized mastery, or emotional expression. Their legacies reflect the interaction of distinctive talent, disciplined effort, artistic innovation, and enabling support ecosystems, which collectively shape how exceptional achievements develop and endure. Understanding these different pathways requires examining not only what composers accomplished during their lifetimes but also how their contributions continued to influence subsequent generations.

This article examines five great classical composers—Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky—to identify their distinctive pathways to enduring musical greatness. It begins with an overview of Western musical history and the foundations of excellence, followed by a comparative analysis of the five masters’ talents, sustained efforts, and supporting ecosystems. Building on these comparisons, the article introduces a Scope–Scale Framework that evaluates the breadth, magnitude, and temporal evolution of their artistic legacies through five conceptual propositions. The resulting insights extend beyond classical music, offering broader lessons about how greatness emerges, expands, and endures in leadership, science, business, education, sports, and the arts.

2. Music History Overview and Foundations of Enduring Musical Excellence

Western classical music developed through successive historical periods in which structure, balance, expression, and innovation accumulated rather than simply replacing one another; this historical progression provides the context for understanding why certain composers later achieved unusually broad and lasting influence.

2.1. Historical Evolution: From Structure to Innovation

The Baroque period (1600–1750) established Western classical music through Sacred Structure, emphasizing contrapuntal mastery, formal construction, and the disciplined musical systems associated with composers such as Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi. The Classical period (1750–1820) advanced toward Formal Balance, as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven refined symphonies, sonatas, concertos, and chamber music through clarity, proportion, and greater expressive flexibility. The Romantic and Modern periods then extended this development through Expressive Expansion and Innovative Diversity, as composers increasingly emphasized emotion, individuality, national identity, harmonic experimentation, and stylistic innovation.

Figure 1 shows how Western classical music evolved across four major periods—Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Modern—moving from sacred structure and formal balance toward expressive expansion and innovative diversity. Across these periods, musical greatness developed through both continuity and innovation, as each generation preserved important traditions while extending musical form, expression, and interpretation in new directions. This historical progression ultimately supports six foundations of enduring musical excellence: technical mastery, artistic originality, emotional depth, cultural influence, historical significance, and educational importance.

Figure 1

Source: Authors’ own conceptualization based on Burkholder et al. (2019), Rosen (1997), and Taruskin (2010).

2.2. Foundations of Enduring Musical Excellence

Enduring musical excellence begins with technical mastery, through which command of form, harmony, instrumentation, and compositional technique enables imagination to become coherent artistic expression. It is strengthened by the interaction of artistic originality and emotional depth, allowing composers such as Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky to extend musical language while creating works that continue to resonate across cultures and generations. Finally, cultural influence, historical significance, and educational importance transform individual achievement into enduring legacy as compositions are repeatedly performed, taught, interpreted, preserved, and transmitted through cultural and institutional ecosystems.

2.3. Historical Foundations and Diverse Pathways to Enduring Greatness

The historical evolution of classical music demonstrates that enduring greatness emerges through multiple pathways, rather than a single formula for artistic achievement. While some composers established foundational musical structures, others expanded existing traditions through versatility, transformational innovation, specialized mastery, or emotional expression. These different pathways reflect the interaction of distinctive talent, disciplined effort, and enabling support ecosystems, through which exceptional musical achievements are developed, preserved, and transmitted across generations. The experiences of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky illustrate how individual creativity and sustained dedication, reinforced by cultural institutions, performers, educators, and audiences, can transform musical excellence into an enduring historical legacy.

3. Five Masters, Five Pathways to Greatness

The five masters illustrate distinct pathways to enduring greatness through the interaction of talent, disciplined effort, and enabling ecosystems, showing that excellence may emerge through structural mastery, versatility, transformation, specialization, or emotional communication,
while lasting legacy depends on how individual achievement is developed, supported, and transmitted across generations.

3.1. Johann Sebastian Bach — Disciplined Structure and Foundations

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) achieved greatness through architectural thinking, as his mastery of counterpoint, harmony, fugue, sacred music, keyboard writing, and instrumental composition enabled him to organize multiple musical voices into complex yet coherent structures. His extraordinary natural capacity became enduring mastery through disciplined craftsmanship, sustained by continuous composing, performing, teaching, revising, and adapting his work within demanding church and court settings. At the same time, Bach’s legacy was amplified by a rich musical ecosystem of family, institutions, performers, students, publishers, and later advocates such as Mendelssohn, demonstrating how enduring greatness depends on developing, performing, preserving, and transmitting excellence.

3.2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart — Genius, Versatility, and Extraordinary Productivity

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) achieved greatness through exceptional natural musical fluency and extraordinary versatility, allowing him to excel across opera, symphony, concerto, chamber music, sacred music, and keyboard composition while maintaining clarity, balance, and melodic invention. His seemingly effortless genius was reinforced by disciplined development, as years of performing, composing, revising, traveling, studying, and responding to commissions produced more than six hundred works within a remarkably short lifetime. Mozart’s achievement was further accelerated by a rich ecosystem shaped by Leopold Mozart, European travel, Vienna’s musical networks, patrons, publishers, performers, and audiences, showing that exceptional talent develops faster when supported by diverse knowledge, capable collaborators, and repeated opportunities for application.

Table 1.

Five Great Masters: Talent, Efforts, Support Ecosystems and Paths to Enduring Greatness

Source: Authors’ synthesis. The table illustrates how enduring greatness develops through the interactions of distinctive talents, sustained efforts, and enabling support ecosystems. The examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive and are not intended to rank the five composers.

Table 1 compares five great composers—Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky—across distinctive talent, sustained effort, enabling ecosystems, representative works, and their different pathways to enduring greatness. It shows that lasting musical excellence emerged through contrasting strengths: Bach’s structural genius and foundation building, Mozart’s versatility, Beethoven’s transformational innovation, Chopin’s specialized piano mastery, and Tchaikovsky’s emotional reach. Taken together, the table demonstrates that greatness results not from talent alone but from the interaction of individual capability, disciplined development, supportive networks, and works capable of enduring across generations.

3.3. Ludwig van Beethoven — Transformation and the Classical–Romantic Bridge

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) demonstrated a strongly transformational form of greatness by mastering the Classical tradition of Haydn and Mozart and then expanding its structures, harmonic possibilities, dramatic contrasts, and expressive intensity in ways that helped prepare the transition toward Romanticism. His achievement was strengthened by extraordinary persistence and disciplined experimentation, as progressive hearing loss did not prevent him from continuing to revise, reconsider, and create increasingly ambitious works through sustained effort and self-criticism. Beethoven’s legacy was also amplified by Vienna’s rich ecosystem of teachers, patrons, publishers, performers, instrument makers, concert institutions, and later composers, showing how transformational talent becomes historically consequential when personal persistence interacts with networks that support experimentation and carry innovation forward.

3.4. Frédéric Chopin — Depth Through Specialization

Frédéric Chopin (1810–1849) followed a distinctive path to greatness through specialized depth, concentrating overwhelmingly on the piano and expanding its possibilities of touch, phrasing, harmony, rhythm, ornamentation, and emotional expression through forms such as nocturnes, études, preludes, mazurkas, polonaises, waltzes, and ballades. His achievement depended on focused refinement, as sustained practice, technical experimentation, subtle revision, and intimate knowledge of the instrument enabled him to transform specialization into cumulative artistic mastery rather than narrow limitation. Chopin’s legacy was further amplified by Polish cultural traditions, Parisian networks of artists, publishers, students, patrons, and salon audiences, and the wider spread of piano culture, demonstrating how focused individual mastery can achieve universal influence when supported by an ecosystem well matched to the domain of excellence.

3.5. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky — Emotional Communication and Worldwide Reach

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840–1893) achieved greatness through emotional resonance combined with professional craftsmanship, using memorable melodies, orchestral color, dramatic pacing, and expressive intensity to make works such as Swan Lake and The Nutcracker accessible to audiences far beyond specialist circles. His apparent accessibility rested on disciplined development, including formal training, composing, teaching, revising, conducting, and sustained engagement with orchestral and theatrical forms that transformed melodic talent into technically sophisticated large-scale works. Tchaikovsky’s worldwide legacy was further amplified by conservatories, orchestras, ballet companies, theaters, publishers, patrons, recordings, broadcasting, film, education, and holiday traditions, demonstrating how great work acquires extraordinary scope when an ecosystem repeatedly translates artistic achievement into memorable experiences for new generations.

The five masters reveal two sides of enduring greatness. Talent, effort, and support ecosystems explain how exceptional achievement is developed and sustained; scope and scale explain how that achievement subsequently travels across audiences, institutions, cultures, and generations. Greatness therefore begins with individual capability but becomes enduring legacy through an ecosystem.

4. A Scope–Scale and Temporal Perspective on Enduring Musical Greatness

The Scope–Scale Framework provides a conceptual basis for distinguishing breadth of influence, magnitude of achievement, and change in impact over time. Rather than treating greatness as a single reputation measure, this section examines how each composer’s influence can be understood through observable indicators such as repertoire presence, institutional adoption, educational use, genre breadth, performance diffusion, and posthumous expansion. The purpose is not to produce a definitive ranking, but to show how different conceptual patterns can explain different pathways to enduring greatness.

4.1. The Scope–Scale Framework: Breadth, Magnitude, and Time

The conceptual framework examines enduring musical greatness through two core dimensions and a temporal perspective: scope, the breadth and longevity of influence; scale, the magnitude and consequence of achievement; and time, the distinction between lifetime impact and posthumous expansion. This temporal perspective recognizes that greatness can grow differently across generations, leading to the conceptual model Enduring Legacy = f(Scope, Scale, Lifetime Impact, Posthumous Expansion). By comparing lifetime impact with later expansion, the framework identifies four broad patterns—Rediscovered Greatness, Amplified Greatness, Contemporary Greatness, and Constrained Legacy—showing that enduring influence can emerge through multiple patterns of historical influence rather than a single path.

Figure 2 presents a conceptual perspective on enduring musical greatness through three complementary dimensions: scope (breadth of influence), scale (magnitude of achievement), and time (lifetime impact and posthumous expansion). The five composers illustrate distinct pathways: Bach represents rediscovered greatness through posthumous amplification, while Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky represent amplified greatness through versatility, transformational innovation, specialized depth, and emotional accessibility, respectively. Together, the five propositions demonstrate that enduring musical excellence emerges through different combinations of artistic achievement, institutional support, historical influence, and intergenerational diffusion, rather than a single pathway to greatness.

Figure 2. Conceptual Pathways to Enduring Musical Greatness

Source: Authors’ Own Synthesis

Note: The composer placements are illustrative conceptual interpretations rather than empirically estimated rankings, emphasizing contrasting patterns of lifetime impact and posthumous expansion.

4.2. Bach: Foundation and Posthumous Amplification

Johann Sebastian Bach’s legacy pattern reflects the interaction of foundational depth and posthumous diffusion, as his influence expanded far beyond the churches, courts, and teaching networks of his lifetime through later revival, publication, conservatory education, and performance. His enduring scope can be observed through the continued teaching, performance, curricular use, and multi-century persistence of his works across countries and institutions. Bach therefore illustrates legacy amplification, showing that historically significant influence can grow substantially after death when structurally powerful work is repeatedly preserved, taught, performed, and transmitted to new generations.

Proposition 1 — Foundation–Amplification Proposition:
The greater the institutional and educational incorporation of foundational musical knowledge, the greater the probability of sustained posthumous amplification across generations.

4.3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Versatility and Broad Scope

Mozart achieved substantial recognition during his lifetime and experienced even greater posthumous expansion through the extraordinary breadth of his work across opera, symphony, concerto, chamber music, sacred music, and keyboard repertoire. From a conceptual perspective, his enduring influence can be understood through genre diversity, repertoire persistence, international performance, and educational use, all of which increased the number of channels through which his music could reach audiences and institutions. Mozart therefore represents a pattern of diversified excellence and high scope, showing how versatility can support wide and persistent influence across generations.

Proposition 2 — Versatility–Scope Proposition:
The greater the breadth of high-quality achievement across multiple genres, the greater the likelihood of wide and persistent diffusion across audiences, institutions, and generations.

4.4. Ludwig van Beethoven: Transformation and Historical Scale

Beethoven’s legacy pattern is distinguished less by breadth alone than by transformational scale, because his works reshaped expectations regarding symphonic form, expressive intensity, artistic autonomy, and the role of the composer. His enduring impact can be examined through indicators such as the continued performance of his symphonies and sonatas, persistence in educational curricula, influence on later composers, and long-term centrality within orchestras and conservatories. Beethoven therefore illustrates how historically consequential innovation can generate deep, persistent, and institutionally embedded influence across generations.

Proposition 3 — Transformation–Scale Proposition:
The greater the degree to which a composer transforms established forms and expectations, the greater the potential magnitude and persistence of long-term historical impact.

4.5. Chopin: Specialized Depth and Global Diffusion

Chopin represents a distinctive pathway to enduring greatness because his compositional scope was concentrated heavily on the piano, yet that specialization generated extraordinary depth and long-run diffusion through education, recital traditions, conservatories, competitions, publishing, and private musical culture. His case shows why conceptual analysis should distinguish domain breadth from geographic and institutional breadth, since a narrow genre focus can still produce wide international influence when the domain itself is strongly institutionalized. Chopin therefore demonstrates that specialized excellence can achieve global and enduring impact, as reflected in the continued teaching, performance, recording, and competitive use of his works across countries and generations.

Proposition 4 — Specialization–Depth Proposition:
The greater the depth of innovation within a highly concentrated domain, the greater the likelihood that specialized excellence can generate broad and enduring influence when supported by a strong institutional ecosystem.

4.6. Tchaikovsky: Emotional Accessibility and Performance Diffusion

Tchaikovsky’s legacy pattern can be examined through the combination of artistic sophistication and broad emotional accessibility. His symphonies, concertos, and especially ballets became embedded not only in professional concert life but also in theaters, education, recordings, broadcasting, film, holiday traditions, and popular cultural contexts. Unlike a composer whose influence remains largely within specialist communities, Tchaikovsky’s works move repeatedly between elite artistic institutions and mass audiences.

This suggests a diffusion pattern in which emotional accessibility increases the number of channels through which music can circulate. Illustrative indicators might include performance frequency across orchestras and ballet companies, geographic diffusion, seasonal recurrence, recording volume, educational exposure, and appearances in broader media environments. His case shows how accessibility can magnify scale without necessarily reducing artistic complexity.

Proposition 5 — Accessibility–Diffusion Proposition:
The greater the combination of technical sophistication and emotional accessibility, the greater the likelihood that musical works will diffuse across both specialist institutions and broader public audiences over time.

5. Conclusion

The Scope–Scale Framework demonstrates that enduring musical greatness does not follow a single pathway but emerges through different combinations of exceptional talent, disciplined effort, artistic innovation, and enabling support ecosystems. The five great composers illustrate distinctive pathways to enduring excellence: Bach through foundational mastery and posthumous amplification, Mozart through versatility and broad influence, Beethoven through transformational innovation, Chopin through specialized depth and global diffusion, and Tchaikovsky through emotional accessibility and worldwide reach. Their contrasting achievements reveal that lasting influence depends not only on the magnitude of artistic accomplishment but also on its breadth, longevity, institutional support, and transmission across cultures and generations. Ultimately, the central question shifts from “Who is greatest?” to “Through what pathways does greatness emerge, expand, and endure?”, offering timeless lessons for leadership, science, business, education, sports, and the arts, where true greatness is measured not merely by lifetime accomplishments but by the enduring capacity to inspire, transform, and enrich future generations.

References

Burkholder, J. P., Grout, D. J., & Palisca, C. V. (2019). A history of Western music (10th ed.). W. W. Norton.

Cook, N. (1998). Music: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Dahlhaus, C. (1989). Nineteenth-century music. University of California Press.

Goehr, L. (2007). The imaginary museum of musical works: An essay in the philosophy of music (Rev. ed.). Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, R. (2011). How to listen to and understand great music (3rd ed.). The Great Courses.

Grout, D. J., & Palisca, C. V. (2001). A history of Western music (6th ed.). W. W. Norton.

Lockwood, L. (2003). Beethoven: The music and the life. W. W. Norton & Company.

Morgan, R. P. (1991). Twentieth-century music: A history of musical style in modern Europe and America. W. W. Norton.

Plantinga, L. (1984). Romantic music: A history of musical style in nineteenth-century Europe. W. W. Norton.

Rosen, C. (1997). The classical style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (Expanded ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Stanley, G. (Ed.). (2000). The Cambridge companion to Beethoven. Cambridge University Press.

Taruskin, R. (2010). The Oxford history of Western music. Oxford University Press.

Schonberg, H. C. (1997). The lives of the great composers (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Wold, M. A., Martin, G. C., Miller, J. A., & Cykler, E. (1994). An outline history of Western music (8th ed.). Brown & Benchmark.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kevin Reilly — Pianist, Music Director, Composer and Music Educator

Kevin Reilly, a graduate of the Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University, is a distinguished music director, pianist, educator, and composer dedicated to musical excellence. A longtime faculty member of the University of Toledo School of Music, he has taught music history, conducted numerous choral performances, including Handel’s Messiah, Mozart’s Gloria, and a rich repertoire of spirituals and sacred music, while leading University of Toledo students to multiple honors at the Choral Festival (Songfest). His lifelong passion for teaching piano, mentoring young musicians, and composing sacred works—including “The Prayer of St. Francis”—reflects his enduring commitment to inspiring others through faith, creativity, and music.

Paul C. Hong (Editor-in-Chief) - Distinguished University Professor, University of Toledo

Paul C. Hong is a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Toledo whose academic background integrates economics, manufacturing management, engineering, and global supply chain strategy. He earned a B.A. in Economics from Yonsei University, an M.A. in Economics from Bowling Green State University, and a Ph.D. in Manufacturing Management and Engineering from the University of Toledo. His research focuses on global supply chain management, strategic benchmarking, manufacturing competitiveness, resilience, industrial policy, and geo-economics, with particular interest in how trade policy, technological change, economic security, and geopolitical competition reshape international production networks and national competitiveness. His current work increasingly examines the intersection of global supply chains, strategic industries, AI-enabled transformation, and geo-economic relations among major economies, emphasizing how firms and nations can balance efficiency, resilience, strategic autonomy, and international cooperation in an increasingly complex global environment.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. October 8, 2026 All rights reserved

Citation:

Kevin Reilly & Paul C. Hong (2026, October 8). Beyond greatness: What the five great classical composers teach us about enduring excellence. K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum.

Original Article:

10 8 26 Beyondgreatness Hongreilly Revised Final (1)

3.32MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

한국어 요약

위대함을 넘어: 다섯 명의 위대한 클래식 작곡가가 전하는 지속적 탁월성의 교훈

이 글은 케빈 라일리(Kevin Reilly)와 폴 C. 홍(Paul C. Hong)이 공동 집필한 것으로, 바흐(Johann Sebastian Bach), 모차르트(Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), 베토벤(Ludwig van Beethoven), 쇼팽(Frédéric Chopin), 차이콥스키(Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky) 등 다섯 명의 위대한 클래식 작곡가들이 어떻게 서로 다른 경로를 통해 시대를 초월하는 음악적 유산을 남겼는지를 탐구한다. 피아니스트이자 음악감독, 교육자, 작곡가인 라일리의 전문적 경험과 리더십 및 지속적 탁월성을 연구해 온 홍 교수의 학문적 관점을 결합하여, 음악적 위대함이 단순한 천재성이나 일시적인 명성만으로 설명될 수 없음을 강조한다. 특히 탁월한 재능, 지속적인 노력, 그리고 이를 뒷받침하는 교육·문화·사회적 지원 생태계가 상호작용할 때 개인의 예술적 성취가 여러 세대에 걸쳐 지속되는 역사적 유산으로 발전한다는 점을 제시한다.

이 글의 핵심 분석 도구는 스코프–스케일 프레임워크(Scope–Scale Framework)이다. 스코프(scope)는 작곡가의 영향력이 여러 세대와 국가, 장르, 교육기관 및 연주 현장에 걸쳐 얼마나 폭넓고 오랫동안 확산되는지를 의미하며, 스케일(scale)은 예술적 성취와 혁신이 음악사에 남긴 영향의 크기와 중요성을 의미한다. 이 프레임워크에 따라 바흐는 정교한 음악적 구조와 대위법의 기초를 확립하고 사후에 영향력이 크게 확장된 기초 확립과 유산의 증폭, 모차르트는 다양한 장르에서 탁월한 작품을 창조한 천재성과 다재다능함, 베토벤은 고전주의의 전통을 혁신하고 낭만주의로의 전환을 이끈 변혁적 혁신, 쇼팽은 피아노라는 전문 영역에서 깊이 있는 예술적 완성도를 이룬 전문화와 심화, 차이콥스키는 풍부한 감성과 극적인 표현을 통해 전 세계 청중에게 다가간 정서적 공감과 대중적 확산의 전형으로 제시된다. 또한 작곡가들의 생전 영향력과 사후 확산을 구분함으로써 음악적 위대함이 형성되고 확대되는 다양한 시간적 경로를 설명하고, 다섯 가지 명제를 통해 각 경로의 특성을 체계화한다.

다섯 작곡가의 비교는 지속적인 위대함에는 단일한 성공 공식이 존재하지 않는다는 중요한 교훈을 제공한다. 바흐의 체계적 장인정신, 모차르트의 폭넓은 창조성, 베토벤의 고난을 극복한 변혁적 도전, 쇼팽의 집중적 전문성, 차이콥스키의 보편적 감성 전달 능력은 서로 다른 재능과 노력의 결합이 탁월한 성취로 이어질 수 있음을 보여 준다. 그러나 개인의 성취가 장기적인 역사적 유산으로 발전하려면 교육기관, 후원자, 연주자, 출판사, 문화적 전통, 그리고 후대의 청중과 같은 지원 생태계의 역할이 필수적이다. 이러한 통찰은 클래식 음악을 넘어 과학, 경영, 정치, 스포츠, 교육 및 예술 등 다양한 분야에서 지속적 탁월성과 리더십을 이해하는 데 적용될 수 있다. 궁극적으로 위대함은 한 개인이 생전에 얼마나 많은 업적을 이루었는가뿐 아니라, 그 업적이 세대를 넘어 얼마나 오랫동안 사람들에게 영감을 주고 새로운 가능성을 열어 주는가에 의해 평가되어야 한다.

© K-Global Schoalrs and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

AI Safety in 2026

Current State, Persistent Problems, and the Path to Trustworthy AI

Executive Summary

Artificial intelligence safety has entered a new phase. Recent frontier models are more capable, more autonomous, and increasingly able to use external tools, write software, conduct research, and act on behalf of users. At the same time, recent research shows persistent problems involving hallucination, sycophancy, prompt injection, cybersecurity misuse, and imperfect monitoring. This article argues that AI safety must therefore move beyond model-level refusal training toward layered system security, continuous evaluation, controlled agency, independent monitoring, and meaningful human oversight. Recent products and safety frameworks provide promising building blocks, but no single safeguard is sufficient.

Keywords: AI safety, AI agents, alignment, cybersecurity, trustworthy AI

1. Opening: When AI Moves from Answering to Acting

For many years, AI safety was primarily associated with a familiar question: Will an AI model generate a harmful answer? In 2026, that question is no longer sufficient. Frontier systems increasingly research the web, write and execute code, manipulate files, use external tools, and perform long sequences of actions with limited human intervention. OpenAI describes GPT-5.5 as a system capable of planning, using tools, checking its work, and continuing until a task is completed, while Google describes Gemini 3.1 Pro as particularly suitable for agentic performance and complex workflows (Google DeepMind, 2026; OpenAI, 2026). (OpenAI)

This transition changes the meaning of safety. A model can refuse a harmful question and still create risk if an agent can be manipulated by an external document, access an inappropriate credential, or take an unintended action through a connected tool. The 2026 International AI Safety Report, therefore, examines not only what general-purpose AI can do, but also emerging risks and the effectiveness and limitations of technical and institutional safeguards (Bengio et al., 2026). (International AI Safety Report)

The central argument of this article is that AI safety should now be understood as a continuous system property rather than a one-time model property. Safer AI requires evaluation before deployment, restrictions during operation, monitoring after deployment, and human accountability throughout the lifecycle.

2. Main Argument: From Safe Models to Safe AI Systems

The development of AI safety has produced important advances, but recent evidence also shows that safety mechanisms have not advanced uniformly with AI capability. The most useful way forward is therefore a layered approach that combines model alignment, adversarial evaluation, runtime security, and human governance.

2.1 What Has Improved: Safety Is Becoming an Engineering Discipline

Leading AI developers now conduct substantially more systematic safety evaluations before releasing frontier models. OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 underwent predeployment safety evaluations, red teaming, and targeted testing in advanced cybersecurity and biological domains. OpenAI classifies GPT-5.5 as having high capability in cybersecurity while remaining below its critical threshold, and it has expanded safeguards for high-risk cyber activities (OpenAI, 2026). (OpenAI)

Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro similarly uses a Frontier Safety Framework covering CBRN risks, cyber risks, harmful manipulation, machine-learning research, and misalignment. Its published assessment reports that the model remained below the framework’s critical capability levels, although additional cyber testing was required because earlier Gemini models had reached an alert threshold in that domain (Google DeepMind, 2026). (Google DeepMind)

Anthropic has also institutionalized safety through system cards and its Responsible Scaling Policy. Its public system-card archive shows continuing safety assessments for successive Claude models, while its policy increasingly emphasizes capability thresholds, required safeguards, and additional sabotage-risk assessment as frontier capabilities increase (Anthropic, 2026). (Anthropic)

These developments represent meaningful progress. AI safety is becoming measurable through red teaming, capability thresholds, system cards, threat simulations, and structured preparedness frameworks. A system card is a comprehensive document that provides detailed information about an AI system. The Frontier Model Forum has likewise published guidance on frontier capability assessments, third-party assessments, incident response, and emerging security practices for AI agents (Frontier Model Forum, 2025, 2026). (Frontier Model Forum)

2.2 What Remains Difficult: Reliability, Manipulation, and Agentic Risk

The central problem is that increased capability does not automatically produce increased reliability. One persistent weakness is hallucination. A 2025 study in Communications Medicine tested six LLMs with fabricated clinical information and found hallucination rates between 50% and 82% across the tested conditions. A mitigation prompt reduced errors substantially, but did not eliminate them (Stump et al., 2025). (Nature)

Another problem is sycophancy, in which an AI changes its response to conform to a user’s beliefs rather than maintaining factual consistency. A 2025 EMNLP study evaluating 17 LLMs found that sycophancy remained prevalent in multi-turn dialogue and reported that alignment tuning could amplify the behavior, while reasoning and scaling sometimes improved resistance (Hong et al., 2025). (ACL Anthology)

Agentic systems introduce a more serious security dimension. Research published in 2026 examined 272,000 attack attempts against 13 frontier models across tool-calling, coding, and computer-use environments. The study found successful indirect prompt-injection attacks across all tested models, with attack rates varying by model and scenario. Importantly, some attacks were concealed from the user’s final view, meaning an agent could potentially perform harmful actions without clearly revealing that it had been manipulated (Dziemian et al., 2026). (arXiv)

This is a fundamental architectural problem. Traditional cybersecurity assumes that software follows explicit programmed rules. AI agents interpret natural-language instructions and external information, making the boundary between trusted instructions and untrusted content less clear. The Frontier Model Forum consequently describes agentic AI as a qualitative shift because advanced agents can reason, use tools, maintain memory, and execute long sequences of actions (Frontier Model Forum, 2026). (Frontier Model Forum)

2.3 What the New Products Tell Us: Safety Must Move Outside the Model

Recent products provide an important indication of where AI safety is heading. Meta’s Llama Guard 4 is a multimodal safeguard model designed to detect problematic prompts and responses, while Meta recommends system-level protections such as Llama Guard, Prompt Guard, and Code Shield around Llama models rather than relying on the underlying model alone (Meta, 2025). (Meta Model API)

NVIDIA’s September 2026 Open Agent Safety Platform goes further by separating agent behavior from the environment in which the agent operates. Its OpenShell runtime provides sandboxing and policy enforcement, while NVIDIA Sentry uses an out-of-band monitoring design based on BlueField infrastructure. The underlying principle is significant: permissions should be controlled by the surrounding system rather than entrusted entirely to the agent’s own reasoning (NVIDIA, 2026). (NVIDIA Investor Relations)

This direction is consistent with the NIST Generative AI Profile, which frames AI risk management as a lifecycle process spanning design, development, use, and evaluation (Autio et al., 2024). (NIST)

The strongest reasonable counterpoint is that additional controls can reduce usefulness. Excessive refusal, restrictive permissions, and constant human approval can make AI systems less efficient and may prevent beneficial applications. This concern is legitimate. Safety should therefore not mean disabling capability. It should mean controlling authority in proportion to risk. Low-risk tasks can receive greater autonomy, while actions involving credentials, financial transactions, sensitive data, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity exploitation, or irreversible decisions should require stronger verification and oversight.

3. Closing: The Future of AI Safety Is Controlled Agency

The evidence from 2025 and 2026 suggests that AI safety is progressing, but the nature of the problem is changing faster than the traditional safety model. Frontier developers now conduct more sophisticated evaluations, publish system cards, establish capability thresholds, and introduce safeguards for cybersecurity, biological risks, manipulation, and autonomy. At the same time, independent research continues to expose weaknesses in hallucination resistance, sycophancy, prompt-injection defense, and agentic control. (International AI Safety Report)

The appropriate response is not to seek a single perfect safety mechanism. AI systems should instead be designed as layered sociotechnical systems. The model should be aligned and evaluated. The agent should operate with least-privilege permissions. External content should be treated as potentially untrusted. Tools should be isolated and monitored. High-impact actions should require verification. Logs should support post-incident investigation. Independent red teams should continuously challenge the system after deployment, not merely before release.

This approach changes the central question from “Is the AI safe?” to “Under what conditions, with what authority, under whose supervision, and with what mechanisms for intervention can this AI be safely used?” That is a more realistic question for an age of increasingly autonomous systems.

AI safety ultimately concerns more than algorithms. It concerns the relationship between intelligence and responsibility. An AI system may become extraordinarily capable, but capability without appropriate boundaries can increase rather than reduce risk. The goal of trustworthy AI should therefore be neither maximum autonomy nor maximum restriction. It should be responsible autonomy, in which human beings retain meaningful authority over consequential decisions while AI systems are given enough freedom to create genuine value. The future of AI safety will depend not only on building smarter machines, but also on building wiser institutions around them.

5. References

Anthropic. (2026). Responsible scaling policy. (Anthropic)

Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 (NIST)

Bengio, Y., Clare, S., Prunkl, C., et al. (2026). International AI safety report 2026. International AI Safety Report. (International AI Safety Report)

Dziemian, M., Lin, M., Fu, X., et al. (2026). How vulnerable are AI agents to indirect prompt injections? Insights from a large-scale public competition. arXiv. (arXiv)

Frontier Model Forum. (2025). Frontier capability assessments. (Frontier Model Forum)

Frontier Model Forum. (2026). Emerging security practices for AI agents. (Frontier Model Forum)

Google DeepMind. (2026). Gemini 3.1 Pro model card. (Google DeepMind)

Hong, J., Byun, G., Kim, S., & Shu, K. (2025). Measuring sycophancy of language models in multi-turn dialogues. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 2239–2259. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.121 (ACL Anthology)

Meta. (2025). Llama Guard 4: Model card and prompt formats. (Meta Model API)

NVIDIA. (2026, September 28). NVIDIA launches Open Agent Safety Platform to secure agents from testing to deployment. (NVIDIA Investor Relations)

OpenAI. (2026, April 23). GPT-5.5 system card. (OpenAI)

OpenAI. (2026). GPT-5.5 deployment safety and preparedness evaluations. (OpenAI Deployment Safety Hub)

Stump, L., Bragazzi, N. L., Nadkarni, G. N., et al. (2025). Multi-model assurance analysis showing large language models are highly vulnerable to adversarial hallucination attacks during clinical decision support. Communications Medicine, 5, 330. (Nature)

6. About the Author

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Full list of his K-GSP columns:

https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_young_choi

Full list of his Books at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0DMZ5S6R7/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=381619c7-0df9-44f4-b943-275bf03d5723&ccs_id=3f36c38c-ba92-4dcf-a124-af49ce39a878

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

7. Suggested Citation

Choi, Y. B. (2026). AI Safety in 2026: Current State, Persistent Problems, and the Path to Trustworthy AI. K-GSP Forum.

한글요약

인공지능의 안전은 이제 단순히 AI가 유해한 답변을 하지 않는 문제를 넘어섰다. 2026년의 최신 AI 모델들은 인터넷 검색, 코드 작성, 소프트웨어 사용, 자료 분석, 외부 도구 활용과 같은 복잡한 작업을 자율적으로 수행할 수 있다. 따라서 AI가 얼마나 정확한 답을 생성하는가뿐 아니라, 어떤 권한을 가지고 무엇을 실행할 수 있는가를 함께 관리해야 한다. 최근 국제 AI 안전 보고서와 연구들은 환각, 사용자의 의견에 지나치게 동조하는 현상인 sycophancy, 간접 프롬프트 주입, 사이버 공격 능력, 에이전트의 자율행동 등이 여전히 중요한 안전 문제임을 보여준다. 동시에 GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 계열, Llama Guard 4와 같은 최신 시스템은 사전 안전평가, red teaming, capability threshold, system card 등의 방법을 적극적으로 활용하고 있다. 특히 NVIDIA의 Open Agent Safety Platform은 AI 모델 자체만이 아니라 에이전트가 실행되는 환경을 샌드박스화하고 외부에서 지속적으로 감시하는 방향을 제시한다. 앞으로의 AI 안전은 하나의 완벽한 안전장치를 찾는 것이 아니라 모델 정렬, 최소권한 원칙, 시스템 격리, 실시간 모니터링, 독립적 평가, 인간의 최종 책임을 결합하는 다층적 접근이 되어야 한다. 궁극적으로 신뢰할 수 있는 AI의 목표는 최대한의 자율성이나 최대한의 제한이 아니라 ‘책임 있는 자율성(responsible autonomy)’이어야 한다.

키워드: AI 안전, AI 에이전트, AI 정렬, 사이버보안, 신뢰할 수 있는 AI

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. 2026. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Author’s Sketch of Far View of Fort Monroe

Fort Monroe: Where American History Arrives by Sea

A Journey Through Exploration, Slavery, War, and Freedom

Abstract

Fort Monroe, located at Old Point Comfort on the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, is far more than a military fortress. It is a remarkable historical landscape in which Indigenous history, European exploration, colonial settlement, the arrival of Africans, slavery, American military development, the Civil War, emancipation, and African American history intersect. The story of Fort Monroe begins before the construction of the present stone fortress in the nineteenth century. In the early seventeenth century, the area became connected to English exploration and the establishment of Jamestown, while Old Point Comfort later became associated with the arrival of the first recorded Africans in English Virginia in 1619. Two centuries later, the United States constructed the present Fort Monroe as one of the most important coastal fortifications of the Third System. During the Civil War, the fort acquired another extraordinary meaning when Major General Benjamin Butler refused to return three enslaved men who had escaped to Union lines and instead classified them as “contraband of war.” This decision helped establish Fort Monroe as a place associated with self-emancipation and freedom. Today, Fort Monroe invites visitors to understand American history not as a sequence of isolated events but as a continuing dialogue among exploration, power, human suffering, resistance, freedom, and memory.

Keywords: Fort Monroe, Old Point Comfort, John Smith, African American history, slavery, emancipation, Civil War, Virginia

A Place Where History Begins at the Water

There are historical places that we visit to see old buildings, and there are places where the landscape itself seems to tell a story. Fort Monroe is one of the latter. Standing at the entrance to Hampton Roads, where the Chesapeake Bay meets the Atlantic Ocean, the fort occupies a strategic location that has connected people, ships, commerce, war, migration, and ideas for centuries. The water surrounding Old Point Comfort was not simply a geographic feature; it was a major pathway through which different worlds encountered one another. Indigenous peoples lived in the region long before Europeans arrived, and the arrival of English explorers transformed the landscape into part of a rapidly expanding colonial world (National Park Service [NPS], n.d.-a). To walk around Fort Monroe today is therefore to walk through several layers of American history at once.

The physical appearance of Fort Monroe can initially make it seem like a conventional military installation. Its massive stone walls, broad moat, gates, bastions, and geometric design communicate strength and defense. Yet the history contained within those walls is much larger than military architecture. The site connects the age of European exploration with the founding of Jamestown, the development of colonial Virginia, the forced migration of Africans, the institution of slavery, the Civil War, and the struggle for freedom. The present fortress itself did not exist when many of these early events occurred; the current Fort Monroe began construction in the early nineteenth century. The historical continuity comes from the land—Old Point Comfort—which remained strategically important across changing periods of American history (NPS, n.d.-b).

John Smith and the Age of English Exploration

To understand Fort Monroe, it is useful to begin with the maritime world of the early seventeenth century. Captain John Smith was one of the most recognizable figures in the English colonization of Virginia. A soldier, explorer, cartographer, and writer, Smith participated in the Jamestown settlement and explored the Chesapeake Bay, producing maps and descriptions that became important to English knowledge of the region (NPS, n.d.-c). His voyages were part of a larger European age of exploration in which geography was closely connected to economic opportunity, political power, trade, and imperial ambition.

Smith’s story is particularly important because exploration was never simply an innocent act of discovery. European explorers entered landscapes that were already inhabited, governed, and culturally meaningful to Indigenous peoples. The Chesapeake region had its own societies, political relationships, economies, and traditions long before English settlers arrived. Consequently, the history of Fort Monroe cannot be understood only from the perspective of European exploration. It must also be viewed as part of a much older Indigenous history and as an encounter among peoples with very different understandings of land, sovereignty, and community.

The Chesapeake waterways also explain why Old Point Comfort became so important. Ships traveling into the bay could use the location as a strategic point for navigation and defense. Early English settlements established forts in the region, including Fort Algernourne at Old Point Comfort in the early colonial period. These early fortifications were very different from the massive masonry structure that would eventually become Fort Monroe, but they reveal the enduring strategic value of the site (NPS, n.d.-d). The history of the place, therefore, begins not with one fortress but with a geographical position that repeatedly attracted human attention.

1619: Africans Arrive at Old Point Comfort

Perhaps the most historically significant connection between Old Point Comfort and American history occurred in 1619. That year, Africans arrived at Point Comfort aboard the English privateer White Lion. Their arrival is commonly recognized as the first recorded arrival of Africans in English Virginia and became an important event in the development of African American history (NPS, 2024).

The historical meaning of 1619 requires careful interpretation. The Africans who arrived at Virginia were not transported into an already fully developed system of hereditary racial slavery identical to the institution that emerged later in colonial America. During the seventeenth century, Virginia’s labor system was still developing, and the legal and social boundaries between different forms of servitude were not yet fully established. Over subsequent decades, however, colonial Virginia increasingly created laws that racialized and institutionalized slavery, eventually producing a hereditary system in which African descent became closely associated with permanent enslavement (Morgan, 1975; NPS, 2024).

This distinction is important because history is often simplified into a single dramatic moment. The arrival of Africans in 1619 was not itself the completed creation of American slavery. Rather, it was one important event in a much longer historical process. The significance of Old Point Comfort lies precisely in this complexity: the same landscape became associated with both the arrival of Africans and, centuries later, a major episode in the struggle to end slavery.

From Colonial Labor to American Slavery

The transformation of slavery in colonial Virginia occurred gradually. As tobacco cultivation expanded, plantation agriculture created an increasing demand for labor. Colonial authorities gradually established legal distinctions that separated enslaved Africans and their descendants from European indentured servants and other laborers. By the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Virginia had developed a deeply entrenched system of racialized hereditary slavery (Morgan, 1975).

The consequences extended far beyond the plantation economy. Slavery influenced law, politics, family structures, wealth, education, religion, and ideas about race. Enslaved people were treated as property under law, yet they continued to exercise agency through family formation, religious life, cultural traditions, resistance, escape, and negotiation. African American history therefore cannot be reduced to a history of victimization. It is also a history of endurance, creativity, resistance, and the persistent pursuit of freedom.

Old Point Comfort became part of this complicated history because of its location along the Chesapeake. Ships, soldiers, merchants, enslaved people, free people, and fugitives all moved through the region. The water that had carried explorers into Virginia also carried people whose lives were shaped by the Atlantic slave trade. The Chesapeake thus became one of the geographical spaces in which American freedom and American slavery developed side by side.

The Birth of the Present Fort Monroe

The Fort Monroe that visitors see today belongs primarily to the nineteenth-century history of the United States. Following the War of 1812, the young nation undertook a major program to strengthen coastal defenses. This effort became known as the Third System of American fortifications. Fort Monroe was one of its most important projects because its position at the entrance to Hampton Roads offered strategic control over access to the Chesapeake Bay (NPS, n.d.-e).

Construction of the present fort began in 1819. Designed according to advanced military engineering principles of the period, Fort Monroe became one of the largest masonry fortifications in the United States. Its massive walls and surrounding moat were intended to protect the harbor and defend the approaches to important American ports and naval facilities (NPS, n.d.-f).

Yet even the construction of this symbol of American national defense contains another layer of history. Enslaved labor was used in the construction of Fort Monroe, demonstrating the contradiction at the heart of nineteenth-century America. The United States was developing institutions dedicated to national security and republican government while slavery remained deeply embedded in the economy and society. Fort Monroe, therefore, represents not only the physical strength of the young nation but also the unresolved moral and political contradictions that eventually contributed to the Civil War.

Fort Monroe and the Civil War

The most dramatic transformation in the meaning of Fort Monroe occurred during the Civil War. When Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861, Fort Monroe remained under Union control. Its strategic position made it an important Union military base in the Chesapeake region. But the fort’s historical significance soon became much greater than its military role.

In May 1861, three enslaved men—Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, and James Townsend—escaped from their enslaver and reached Fort Monroe seeking protection. Their arrival presented the Union Major General Benjamin F. Butler a legal and political problem. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, enslaved people who escaped to Union-controlled territory could be claimed by enslavers. Butler, however, argued that because enslaved people were being used to support the Confederate war effort, they could be treated as “contraband of war” rather than returned (NPS, n.d.-g; NPS, n.d.-h).

Butler’s decision was not the same as a general legal abolition of slavery. Nevertheless, it created a significant opening for enslaved people seeking freedom. News of the decision spread, and increasing numbers of enslaved people made their way toward Union-held Fort Monroe. The people who came to the fort were not passive recipients of freedom; many actively chose to leave slavery and take the dangerous journey toward Union protection. Their actions became part of a broader process of self-emancipation during the Civil War.

The Contraband Community

The people who escaped to Fort Monroe created a community that became known as the Contraband Camp. Its population grew substantially during the war, and the community developed schools, churches, homes, and other institutions. The camp became an important example of African Americans building community under extraordinary circumstances while the nation was still fighting over the future of slavery (NPS, n.d.-i).

This part of Fort Monroe’s history changes the way we understand the word “freedom.” Freedom did not simply arrive from Washington in the form of a presidential document. Long before emancipation became national policy, enslaved people themselves were crossing lines, leaving plantations, entering Union territory, and demanding protection. Their movement forced the federal government to confront the practical meaning of freedom in the middle of a war.

The story also demonstrates the importance of ordinary people in historical change. Textbooks often emphasize presidents, generals, battles, and laws, but the history of Fort Monroe reveals another dimension of the Civil War: the decisions made by individuals whose names were rarely recorded in major political histories. Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, James Townsend, and thousands of others helped transform the meaning of Union military occupation by turning it into a pathway toward freedom.

From Military Fortress to “Freedom’s Fortress”

Because of these events, Fort Monroe has sometimes been described as “Freedom’s Fortress.” The phrase captures an important transformation in the site’s historical meaning. The fort was originally constructed to defend the United States against military threats, but during the Civil War, it also became a place where enslaved people sought protection from bondage.

The transformation is historically significant because it was not planned when the fortress was built. The engineers who designed its walls in the nineteenth century could not have known that those walls would later become associated with emancipation. Historical places often acquire meanings that their original builders never imagined. A building may begin as a military structure and later become a symbol of human freedom because people make new uses of it in response to changing circumstances.

Therefore, Fort Monroe illustrates an important principle of history: places do not have only one meaning. Their meanings evolve as different generations experience them. A fortress can be a weapon of national defense, a prison-like reminder of military power, a refuge for freedom seekers, a site of the African American community, and eventually a national monument dedicated to preserving memory.

Walking Through History Today

A visit to Fort Monroe is consequently different from visiting an ordinary tourist attraction. The massive walls invite attention to military architecture, while the surrounding landscape encourages visitors to think about the people who passed through it. The Chesapeake Bay evokes exploration and trade, while the Contraband Camp reminds visitors of people who crossed the same landscape in search of freedom. The fort’s military structures tell a story of national power, while the history of slavery reminds us that American power developed within profound contradictions.

The Fort Monroe National Monument designation in 2011 created a new opportunity to preserve and interpret these overlapping histories. The National Park Service now presents Fort Monroe as a place where military, African American, Indigenous, colonial, and national histories intersect (NPS, n.d.-a). This approach is important because preserving history does not mean preserving only buildings. It also means preserving the questions, experiences, conflicts, and human stories connected to those buildings.

Therefore, a visitor becomes more than a tourist. Walking through the gates becomes an exercise in historical interpretation. Who built these walls? Who was protected by them? Who was excluded? Who sought refuge there? What did freedom mean to the people who arrived at the fort? And how should later generations remember a place connected simultaneously to national defense, slavery, war, and emancipation?

History as Memory and Responsibility

Fort Monroe offers a particularly powerful lesson for the twenty-first century because it demonstrates that American history cannot be understood through a single narrative. Exploration and colonization existed together with Indigenous displacement. National independence and republican ideals developed alongside slavery. Military power could protect a nation while also becoming an instrument through which enslaved people found a path toward freedom.

The importance of Fort Monroe is therefore not limited to the events that happened there. Its deeper significance lies in the way it connects different chapters of American history. John Smith’s voyages represent an age of exploration and empire. The arrival of Africans in 1619 connects the site to the long history of the African diaspora and slavery. The construction of the nineteenth-century fortress represents the rise of American military power. The Contraband decision connects the same landscape to self-emancipation and the transformation of slavery during the Civil War.

For modern visitors, the greatest lesson may be that freedom is not merely an abstract political principle. It is experienced through physical movement, personal decisions, community formation, law, institutions, and historical memory. The men who reached Fort Monroe in 1861 did not know how the Civil War would end. They knew only that remaining where they were meant remaining enslaved, while reaching Union lines offered another possibility. Their decision became part of a much larger transformation in American history.

Conclusion: A Fortress That Became a Question

Fort Monroe stands today as a remarkable place where the history of America can be encountered through geography, architecture, and human experience. Its story begins with the Indigenous history of the Chesapeake and the maritime exploration of John Smith, continues through the colonial development of Virginia and the arrival of Africans in 1619, and extends into the construction of the great nineteenth-century fortress. During the Civil War, the fort became a place where enslaved people sought protection and where the meaning of freedom began to change through individual acts of self-emancipation.

The significance of Fort Monroe ultimately lies in this extraordinary historical layering. It was a strategic military site, but it was also a crossroads of people and ideas. It was connected to slavery, yet it became associated with freedom. It was built to defend a nation, yet its most enduring legacy may be the people who came to its walls seeking a new life.

To visit Fort Monroe is therefore to do more than look at an old fortress. It is to encounter a question that remains relevant across generations: What does freedom mean when it must be claimed, protected, remembered, and passed to others? The stones of Fort Monroe cannot answer that question by themselves. They can, however, remind us that American history was made not only by presidents and generals, but also by explorers, laborers, enslaved people, freedom seekers, families, soldiers, and communities whose choices changed the meaning of the places they inhabited.

Fort Monroe’s greatest historical lesson may therefore be found not in its walls but in the human stories that passed through them. The fortress remains, but its meaning has changed. What was once built primarily for defense has become a place of historical reflection—a landscape where exploration, slavery, war, emancipation, and memory meet. In that sense, Fort Monroe is not simply a monument to the past. It is a living reminder that the meaning of America has always been shaped by the continuing human search for freedom.

References

National Park Service. (2024). Arrival of the first Africans in 1619. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service — Arrival of the First Africans in 1619

National Park Service. (n.d.-a). Fort Monroe National Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service — Fort Monroe National Monument

National Park Service. (n.d.-b). History & culture. Fort Monroe National Monument, U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service — Fort Monroe History & Culture

National Park Service. (n.d.-c). John Smith. Historic Jamestowne, U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service — John Smith

National Park Service. (n.d.-d). Growth and settlement beyond Jamestown. Historic Jamestowne, U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service — Growth and Settlement Beyond Jamestown

National Park Service. (n.d.-e). Foundation document: Fort Monroe National Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. (n.d.-f). Third system of fortification. U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. (n.d.-g). Fort Monroe and the contrabands of war. Fort Monroe National Monument, U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. (n.d.-h). Major General Benjamin F. Butler. Fort Monroe National Monument, U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. (n.d.-i). Discover Fort Monroe’s African American heritage. Fort Monroe National Monument, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Morgan, E. S. (1975). American slavery, American freedom: The ordeal of colonial Virginia. W. W. Norton.

Fort Moroe Entrance Sign - Freedom’s Fortress

The Front View of The Fort Monroe Visitor & Education Center

Entrance to The Fort Monroe Visitor & Education Center

Various Activities Hosted by The Fort Monroe Visitor & Education Center

Chesapeake Bay close to Fort Monroe

Captain John Smith of England

The First Three Contrabands

A Very Brief History of Fort Monroe

Fort Monroe I

Fort Monroe II

Captain John Smith’s Shallop Brought from England

Author’s Sketch of Captain John Smith’s Shallop

포트 먼로: 바다 끝에서 만나는 미국의 역사

탐험에서 자유까지 — 노예제와 전쟁을 지나온 역사적 여정

Abstract

Fort Monroe National Monument는 버지니아의 Chesapeake Bay 입구에 자리한 거대한 요새이지만, 그 의미는 군사 건축을 훨씬 넘어선다. 이곳의 역사는 미국 원주민 사회, 영국의 Chesapeake 탐험, Jamestown 식민지, 1619년 아프리카인의 강제 이주, 미국 노예제도의 발전, 남북전쟁, 그리고 자유를 찾아 요새로 들어온 사람들의 이야기와 연결되어 있다. 특히 Old Point Comfort는 1619년 영국령 북미에 최초로 기록된 아프리카인들이 도착한 장소이며, 1861년에는 노예제에서 탈출한 세 사람이 Union군에게 보호를 요청한 장소이기도 했다(National Park Service [NPS], 2024a, n.d.-a). 이처럼 같은 해안이 한때 강제 이주의 입구였다가 242년 뒤에는 자유를 찾아가는 피난처가 되었다는 사실은 Fort Monroe를 미국 역사의 중요한 상징적 공간으로 만든다.

Keywords: Fort Monroe, Old Point Comfort, John Smith, 1619 Africans, American Slavery, Civil War, Freedom

바다를 따라 역사 속으로 들어가다

여행에는 두 종류가 있다. 하나는 새로운 장소를 보는 여행이고, 다른 하나는 익숙했던 역사를 새로운 눈으로 보는 여행이다. Fort Monroe를 방문하는 여행은 후자에 가깝다. Chesapeake Bay를 바라보며 거대한 석벽과 해자를 따라 걷다 보면 처음에는 미국의 오래된 군사 요새를 보고 있다고 생각하게 된다. 그러나 조금 더 오래 머물면 이곳이 단순한 요새가 아니라 미국이라는 국가가 형성되는 과정에서 서로 다른 시대와 사람들이 교차했던 장소였음을 알게 된다.

오늘날 Fort Monroe National Monument가 자리한 반도는 역사적으로 Old Point Comfort라고 불렸다. 이곳은 Chesapeake Bay와 주요 강들의 입구에 가까운 전략적 위치에 있어 초기 Virginia 식민지 시대부터 중요한 장소였다. National Park Service는 이 지역의 역사를 American Indians, Captain John Smith, 초기 영국 식민지 개척자들, 아프리카인, 남북전쟁의 freedom seekers, 그리고 현대 미국의 군사 역사까지 연결되는 장기적인 역사로 설명한다 (NPS, n.d.-a).

따라서 Fort Monroe를 이해하는 가장 좋은 방법은 요새의 벽에서 시작하지 않는 것이다. 바다에서 시작해야 한다. 바다는 이곳의 역사를 움직인 가장 오래된 길이기 때문이다.

John Smith와 Chesapeake의 항해

17세기 초 유럽의 세계는 바다를 중심으로 빠르게 변하고 있었다. 영국, 스페인, 프랑스, 네덜란드 등은 새로운 항로와 무역 기회를 찾으며 북아메리카로 진출했다. 영국의 Virginia Company of London 역시 Chesapeake 지역에 식민지를 건설하기 위해 원정대를 조직했고, 그 원정대에 포함된 사람이 Captain John Smith였다.

National Park Service에 따르면 Smith는 Virginia Company의 원정에 참여하여 1607년 Jamestown 건설에 중요한 역할을 했으며, 이후 Chesapeake 지역을 광범위하게 탐험하고 지리 정보를 기록했다(NPS, n.d.-b). 그의 탐험과 지도 제작은 초기 Virginia 식민지의 지리적·경제적·군사적 환경을 이해하는 데 중요한 자료가 되었다.

John Smith의 이야기는 모험소설처럼 읽을 수도 있다. 그러나 오늘날 우리는 그의 이야기를 단순한 영웅담으로만 읽을 필요는 없다. 그의 항해와 지도 제작은 ‘유럽의 탐험이 어떻게 식민지 건설과 영토에 대한 새로운 인식을 만들어냈는가?’를 보여 주기 때문이다(NPS, n.d.-b). 지도는 단순한 지리 정보가 아니었다. 어디에 정착할 수 있는가, 어떤 강을 이용할 수 있는가, 어느 곳이 방어에 유리한가, 어디에서 배가 안전하게 정박할 수 있는가를 알려주는 중요한 도구였다. 그리고 Old Point Comfort는 바로 그런 장소였다.

1607년에서 1609년으로 — 요새가 생겨나다

Jamestown이 1607년 건설된 뒤 Virginia 식민지는 생존을 위해 여러 방향으로 확장되었다. 1609년 Captain John Smith는 Jamestown에 집중되어 있던 정착민들을 여러 지역으로 분산시키는 정책을 추진했고, Chesapeake 입구에 가까운 지역에도 여러 방어시설이 건설되었다. National Park Service는 이 과정에서 Forts Henry, Charles, Algernon 등이 오늘날 Fort Monroe 주변에 세워졌으며, 이 시설들이 식민지 방어와 해상 접근로 감시에서 중요한 역할을 했다고 설명한다 (NPS, n.d.-c).

특히 Fort Algernourne은 Old Point Comfort의 초기 군사 역사를 상징한다. 오늘날 Fort Monroe 안에 있는 Algernourne Oak이라는 거대한 참나무는 이 지역의 초기 역사를 기억하게 하는 자연유산이다. NPS는 이 나무가 수백 년 된 것으로 추정되며 그 이름이 1609년경 이곳에 세워졌던 Fort Algernourne과 연결되어 있다고 설명한다 (NPS, n.d.-d).

이렇게 생각하면 Fort Monroe의 풍경은 달라진다. 성벽은 19세기의 것이지만, 그 땅의 군사적 역사는 17세기 초까지 거슬러 올라간다. 즉, Fort Monroe는 ‘하나의 요새라기보다 같은 장소에 여러 시대의 역사적 지층이 겹쳐 있는 공간’이라고 볼 수 있다.

1619년 — 바다가 가져온 또 다른 역사

그러나 Fort Monroe의 역사에서 가장 중요한 장면 가운데 하나는 군사적 사건이 아니다. 1619년 8월, 아프리카인들이 탄 배가 Old Point Comfort에 도착했다. National Park Service에 따르면 이들은 현재의 Angola 지역에 존재했던 Ndongo 왕국 출신으로, 포르투갈 노예선 São João Bautista에 실려 강제로 이동하던 사람들이었다. 영국계 사략선 White Lion이 이 배를 공격한 뒤 일부 아프리카인들이 Virginia로 끌려왔으며, 1619년 8월 25일경 Old Point Comfort에 도착했다(NPS, 2024a).

John Rolfe의 기록에는 “20 and odd Negroes”라는 표현이 남아 있으며, NPS는 이를 Virginia에 기록된 최초의 아프리카인 도착 사건으로 설명한다(NPS, 2024a). 여기서 역사적으로 중요한 주의점이 하나 있다. 1619년에 도착한 사람들의 당시 법적 지위가 후대에 제도화된 미국식 인종·세습 노예제와 처음부터 동일했다고 단순화해서는 안 된다. NPS의 설명에 따르면 Virginia 식민지의 당시 법률은 후대의 노예제도와 같은 형태로 완전히 정착되어 있지 않았다(NPS, 2024a).

그러나 그들이 강제로 이송된 사람들이었다는 사실은 분명하다. 이후 17세기 동안 Virginia의 법률과 사회제도는 아프리카인과 그 후손을 대상으로 한 인종화되고 세습적인 종신 노예제도를 점차 제도화했다 (NPS, 2024a). 따라서 1619년은 완성된 미국 노예제도의 한 순간이라기보다, 이후 수세기 동안 발전하게 될 미국의 인종·노동·법률 체계와 연결되는 중요한 역사적 출발점으로 이해하는 것이 더 정확하다.

숫자 뒤에 있는 사람들

1619년의 이야기를 “20여 명의 아프리카인”이라는 숫자로만 기억하면 중요한 것을 놓치게 된다. 그들은 숫자가 아니었다. 그들에게는 고향이 있었고 가족이 있었으며 언어와 문화가 있었다. NPS는 당시 Virginia에 도착한 아프리카인들이 농업, 목축, 대장 기술 등 다양한 기술을 가지고 있었으며 자신들의 문화적 전통도 가지고 왔다고 설명한다(NPS, 2024a).

그 가운데 알려진 인물이 Isabella와 Antoney이다. Virginia의 기록에는 그들과 아들 William에 관한 내용이 남아 있으며, 이들의 이야기는 초기 아프리카계 Virginia 주민들의 삶을 이해하는 데 중요한 자료가 된다(NPS, 2024a). 이 사실은 중요한 역사적 관점을 제공한다. 아프리카계 미국인은 미국 역사의 나중에 추가된 사람들이 아니다. 미국 역사의 초기 단계부터 미국의 형성 과정에 존재했던 사람들이다. 그들의 노동과 기술은 Virginia 식민지의 생존과 경제 발전에 기여했으며, 이후 아프리카계 미국인의 문화는 미국 사회의 형성 과정에 깊이 자리 잡았다(NPS, 2024a).

왜 Fort Monroe를 건설했을까?

현재의 Fort Monroe는 1619년의 요새가 아니다. 오늘날 우리가 보는 거대한 석조 성채는 19세기의 대규모 해안 방어 시설이다. 건설은 1819년 시작되었으며 10년 이상 지속되었다 (NPS, n.d.-e). Fort Monroe의 건설은 미국의 해안 방어 전략과 직접적으로 연결되어 있다. 1812년 전쟁 이후 미국 정부는 주요 항구와 해안 지역을 방어하기 위해 이른바 Third System of Coastal Fortifications를 구축했다. 이 체계는 미국의 주요 항구와 해상 접근로를 보호하기 위한 대규모 요새 네트워크였다 (NPS, n.d.-f).

Fort Monroe는 그 가운데 중요한 시설이었다. Chesapeake Bay와 Hampton Roads에 접근하는 해상로를 감시하고 방어하기에 매우 유리한 위치에 있었기 때문이다 (NPS, n.d.-e). 따라서 Fort Monroe가 만들어진 가장 직접적인 이유는 국가 방어와 해상 교통로 보호였다. 그러나 그 건설 과정은 당시 미국 사회의 노예제 현실과 분리되어 있지 않았다. NPS의 Foundation Document는 요새 건설 과정에서 노예 노동이 사용되었다는 사실도 기록하고 있다(NPS, n.d.-e). 이러한 사실은 Fort Monroe를 이해하는 데 중요한 역사적 역설을 보여준다. 자유의 역사를 기억하는 요새가 노예제 사회에서 건설되었다.

돌로 만들어진 국가의 방어선

Fort Monroe의 규모는 압도적이다. 해자와 두꺼운 성벽, 포대와 casemate를 갖춘 이 요새는 19세기 미국의 군사공학을 보여주는 대표적인 사례다. Third System 요새들은 이전보다 강력한 방어력을 갖도록 설계되었으며, 두꺼운 벽과 포탄 공격에 견딜 수 있는 구조를 사용했다 (NPS, n.d.-f).

Fort Monroe는 따라서 단순한 건축물이 아니다. 그것은 미국이 독립국가로서 자신의 영토와 항구, 무역로를 보호하기 위해 얼마나 많은 자원을 투입했는지를 보여주는 물리적 기록이다. 그러나 이 거대한 방어시설의 역사를 바라볼 때 우리는 동시에 한 가지 질문을 던지게 된다. 누구의 노동으로 국가의 방어선이 만들어졌는가? 바로 이 질문 때문에 Fort Monroe는 군사건축을 넘어선 역사교육의 공간이 된다.

1861년 — 같은 장소에서 역사가 뒤집히다

그리고 1861년, Fort Monroe의 역사는 극적으로 방향을 바꾼다. 남북전쟁이 시작되었을 때 Virginia는 Confederacy에 합류했지만 Fort Monroe는 Union군의 통제 아래 남았다. 그해 5월, 세 명의 노예였던 Frank Baker, James Townsend, Shepard Mallory가 Fort Monroe에 찾아와 보호를 요청했다(NPS, n.d.-g).

Union군 지휘관 Benjamin Butler는 이들을 노예주에게 돌려보내지 않았다. 그는 이들을 Confederate군의 전쟁 수행에 사용될 수 있는 재산으로 간주하여 “contraband of war”라는 논리를 적용했다 (NPS, n.d.-h). 이 결정은 이후 다른 노예들이 Union군 진영으로 탈출하는 데 중요한 선례가 되었다(NPS, n.d.-h).

그러나 Butler의 결정을 당시의 노예제 폐지 선언과 동일시해서는 안 된다. NPS가 설명하듯 Butler는 abolitionist가 아니었으며, 그의 결정은 전쟁과 군사적 필요에 대한 법적 해석에서 출발했다 (NPS, n.d.-h). 그럼에도 그 결과는 중요했다. 한 개인의 법적 판단이 수많은 사람들이 자유를 찾아 이동하는 새로운 현실을 만들어냈기 때문이다.

자유를 찾아 Fort Monroe로

Butler의 결정 이후 Fort Monroe에는 점점 더 많은 freedom seekers가 몰려들었다. NPS는 이곳에 형성된 Contraband Camp가 수천 명 규모로 성장했으며, 이 공동체가 교육과 종교, 노동과 자립을 위한 새로운 삶의 공간으로 발전했다고 설명한다(NPS, n.d.-i) 이 장면을 1619년과 나란히 놓으면 Fort Monroe의 역사는 매우 인상적인 대칭 구조를 갖게 된다.

1619년에는 아프리카인들이 강제로 Virginia로 끌려왔다. 1861년에는 노예들이 자유를 찾아 Fort Monroe로 탈출해 왔다. 같은 장소, 같은 해안, 그러나 전혀 다른 역사적 방향이다. 1619년에는 사람들이 자신의 의사와 관계없이 이동했다. 1861년에는 사람들이 자신의 의지로 자유를 향해 이동했다.이 변화는 Fort Monroe가 미국 역사에서 갖는 가장 중요한 상징 가운데 하나다.

“Contraband”에서 Emancipation으로

Fort Monroe에서 시작된 사건은 군사적 결정 하나로 끝나지 않았다. NPS는 Butler의 결정과 이후의 사건들이 First Confiscation Act, Second Confiscation Act, Emancipation Proclamation, 그리고 궁극적으로 Thirteenth Amendment와 연결되는 광범위한 역사적 변화의 일부였다고 설명한다 (NPS, n.d.-h).

물론 Fort Monroe 하나가 노예제 폐지를 만들어낸 것은 아니다. 미국의 노예제 폐지는 남북전쟁, 의회 입법, 대통령 정책, 노예들의 자기해방, abolitionist 운동, 군사적 변화, 그리고 헌법 개정 등이 복합적으로 작용한 결과였다.

그러나 Fort Monroe는 그 거대한 변화 속에서 중요한 장면을 보여준다. 사람들이 먼저 움직였다. 그들이 요새의 문을 두드렸다. 그리고 정부는 그 새로운 현실에 대응해야 했다. 이것은 역사에서 중요한 교훈을 제공한다. 사회의 변화는 법률이나 제도에서만 시작되는 것이 아니라, 사람들이 기존 제도의 경계를 넘어설 때 시작되기도 한다.

미국 역사에서 Fort Monroe의 위치

Fort Monroe의 미국 역사에서의 위치는 하나의 사건으로 설명할 수 없다. 그것은 최소한 다음과 같은 네 개의 역사적 흐름이 교차하는 장소다.

탐험과 식민지의 역사 - John Smith와 초기 영국 식민지 개척자들이 Chesapeake 지역을 탐험하고 Jamestown를 중심으로 정착지를 확대하던 시대와 연결된다 (NPS, n.d.-b, n.d.-c).

아프리카계 미국인의 역사 - 1619년 Old Point Comfort는 Virginia에 기록된 최초의 아프리카인 도착과 연결되며, 이후 미국 노예제도의 발전이라는 장기적 역사와 이어진다(NPS, 2024a).

미국 군사사의 역사 - 1819년부터 건설된 Fort Monroe는 Third System of Coastal Fortifications의 중요한 요새로 Chesapeake Bay와 Hampton Roads를 방어하는 역할을 했다 (NPS, n.d.-e, n.d.-f).

자유와 해방의 역사 - 1861년 Frank Baker, James Townsend, Shepard Mallory가 이곳으로 피신한 사건과 Butler의 Contraband Decision 이후 수많은 freedom seekers가 Fort Monroe로 모여든 역사는 미국의 해방 역사와 연결된다(NPS, n.d.-g, n.d.-h).

따라서 Fort Monroe를 한 문장으로 설명한다면 이렇게 말할 수 있다.

Fort Monroe is a place where exploration, colonization, slavery, military power, self-emancipation, and freedom intersect. (포트 먼로는 탐험과 식민지 개척, 노예제와 군사력, 그리고 자기해방과 자유가 한곳에서 만나는 살아 있는 역사의 공간이다.)

역사를 기억한다는 것

오늘날 Fort Monroe를 방문하는 사람은 단순히 오래된 성벽을 구경하는 관광객이 아니다. 그 사람은 다음과 같은 미국 역사의 여러 질문 앞에 서게 된다.

누가 이 땅에 먼저 살았는가?

왜 유럽인들은 이곳으로 왔는가?

왜 식민지를 건설했는가?

왜 아프리카인들이 강제로 이곳에 끌려왔는가?

왜 노예제는 그렇게 오랫동안 유지되었는가?

왜 어떤 사람들은 1861년에 자유를 찾아 Fort Monroe로 도망쳐 왔는가?

그리고 미국은 어떻게 노예제를 폐지하게 되었는가?

Fort Monroe가 중요한 이유는 이러한 질문에 하나의 단순한 답을 제공하지 않기 때문이다. 오히려 서로 모순되는 역사적 사실들을 한 장소에서 만나게 한다. 미국은 자유를 선언하면서 노예제를 유지했다. 국가를 방어하기 위해 세운 요새가 노예제 사회의 노동을 이용해 건설되었다. 1619년 강제로 끌려온 사람들이 들어온 바로 그 지역이 1861년에는 자유를 찾아온 사람들을 받아들였다. 이러한 모순을 제거하는 것이 역사교육은 아니다. 오히려 그 모순을 정확하게 이해하는 것이 역사교육의 출발점이다.

여행자가 발견하는 미국

Fort Monroe를 떠날 때는 다시 한번 Chesapeake Bay를 바라보게 된다. 바다는 처음 방문했을 때와 똑같다. 그러나 보는 사람의 눈은 달라졌다. 처음에는 아름다운 해안이었다.그다음에는 John Smith의 항해가 떠올랐다. 그리고 Jamestown와 초기 식민지가 보였다. 1619년의 White Lion이 떠올랐다. 아프리카에서 강제로 끌려온 사람들의 모습이 떠올랐다. 그 뒤에는 노예 노동을 포함한 당시의 노동체계 속에서 건설된 거대한 요새가 보였다. 그리고 1861년 Main Gate를 향해 걸어온 Frank Baker, James Townsend, Shepard Mallory가 떠오른다(NPS, n.d.-g).

마침내 이 모든 장면이 하나의 역사적 문장으로 연결된다. ‘같은 장소가 다른 시대의 사람들에게 전혀 다른 의미가 될 수 있다.’ Old Point Comfort는 한때 식민지의 전초기지였다. 그곳은 노예제의 역사적 기억을 가진 장소가 되었다. 그리고 남북전쟁 때는 자유를 찾아온 사람들의 피난처가 되었다. 오늘날에는 그 모든 이야기를 기억하는 National Monument가 되었다. Fort Monroe는 2011년 National Monument로 지정되었으며 현재 National Park Service와 Fort Monroe Authority가 역사 보존과 교육을 이어가고 있다(NPS, n.d.-a).

성벽보다 오래 남는 것

Fort Monroe 여행의 마지막 장면은 성벽이 아니라 바다였으면 한다. 성벽은 인간이 만들었다. 등대도 인간이 만들었다. 요새도 인간이 만들었다. 그러나 바다는 인간보다 오래 존재했다.

1607년에도 이 바다는 그 자리에 있었다.

1619년에도 그랬다.

1819년에도 그랬고,

1861년에도 그랬다.

2026년에도 그렇다.

오늘도 여전히 Chesapeake Bay는 조용히 물결친다. 하지만 그 물결을 바라보는 우리는 이제 그 바다를 단순한 아름다운 하나의 자연경관으로만 볼 수 없다. 그 바다는 탐험의 길이었다. 식민지의 길이었다. 노예선의 길이었다. 군함의 길이었다. 그리고 자유를 찾아 떠난 사람들의 길이었다. 그래서 Fort Monroe의 진정한 의미는 거대한 성벽의 크기에 있지 않다.

그 의미는 ‘미국이라는 나라가 어떤 과정을 통해 오늘에 이르렀는지를 한 장소에서 생각하게 한다는 데 있다.’ 미국의 역사는 하나의 단순한 성공담도, 하나의 단순한 실패담도 아니다. 그것은 탐험과 식민주의, 자유와 노예제, 국가 건설과 인간의 권리, 전쟁과 해방이 서로 충돌하고 변화해 온 복합적인 역사다.

Fort Monroe는 그 역사를 숨기지 않는다. 오히려 성벽과 등대, 바다와 나무, 군사시설과 역사적 표지를 통해 우리에게 말한다. ‘역사를 기억한다는 것은 과거를 그대로 되풀이하는 것이 아니라, 과거의 복잡성을 이해하고 현재를 더 정확하게 바라보는 일이다.’ 그리고 아마 이것이 Fort Monroe를 방문한 여행자가 집으로 가져갈 수 있는 가장 중요한 기념품일 것이다. 돌이나 사진이 아니다.

‘역사를 바라보는 새로운 시선’이다.

References

National Park Service. (2024, August 2). Arrival of the first Africans in 1619. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/arrival-of-the-first-africans-in-1619.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.-a). Fort Monroe National Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/fomr/

National Park Service. (n.d.-b). John Smith. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://home.nps.gov/people/john-smith.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.-c). Growth and settlement beyond Jamestown. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/growth-and-settlement-beyond-jamestown.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.-d). Featured stories: Fort Monroe National Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/articles/featured_stories_fomr.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.-e). Fort Monroe National Monument Foundation Document. U.S. Department of the Interior. Foundation Document

National Park Service. (n.d.-f). Third System of fortification. U.S. Department of the Interior. Third System of Fortification

National Park Service. (n.d.-g). Fort Monroe Main Gate. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fort Monroe Main Gate

National Park Service. (n.d.-h). Major General Benjamin F. Butler. U.S. Department of the Interior. Benjamin F. Butler

National Park Service. (n.d.-i). Discover Fort Monroe’s African American heritage. U.S. Department of the Interior. African American Heritage at Fort Monroe

2026년 10월 7일

{솔티}

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

© K-GSP (K-Global Scholars and Professionals) Forum. All rights reserved. 2026.

Suggested Citation:

Choi, Y. B. (2026, October 7). Fort Monroe: Where American History Arrives by Sea: A Journey Through Exploration, Slavery, War, and Freedom. K-GSP.

When AI Enters the Classroom, What Should Remain Human?

Rethinking Education in the Age of Generative AI

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence is changing higher education faster than universities can rewrite their curricula, assessment systems, and academic policies. The 2026 Report of MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training offers an important response to this transformation. Rather than treating AI primarily as a tool to be prohibited or a technology to be adopted, the report asks a deeper question: What is the purpose of education when machines can increasingly perform tasks that once demonstrated student knowledge? MIT proposes eight guiding principles—including humility, boldness, human-centeredness, intentional teaching, learning-centered design, and “augmentation not automation”—and recommends three broad directions: adapting educational processes for an AI-aware world, strengthening people and community, and building systems for continuous reflection and improvement (MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training, 2026). This essay argues that the most important lesson of the MIT report is not how universities should control AI, but how they should redefine learning. In an AI-rich educational environment, the university’s greatest responsibility may be to cultivate judgment, curiosity, creativity, ethical responsibility, human relationships, and the capacity to use intelligence without surrendering agency to the machine.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, generative AI, higher education, AI literacy, human-centered education, assessment, academic integrity, learning, MIT, educational transformation

The Question Behind the Question

Every major technological revolution eventually creates a crisis of education. The printing press changed who could possess knowledge. Industrialization changed what societies expected schools to teach. Computers changed how information was produced and processed. Generative AI is creating another transformation, but with an important difference: the machine is no longer merely storing, calculating, or retrieving information. It can explain, summarize, translate, program, generate images, construct arguments, simulate conversations, and increasingly participate in research and creative work. This creates an uncomfortable question for universities: If a machine can produce the answer, what exactly should the student learn?

MIT’s 2026 report is valuable because it does not reduce this question to whether students should be allowed to use ChatGPT. The committee was originally charged with assessing current AI use, identifying innovations in teaching and assessment, and proposing an AI-use policy. Yet the committee concluded that the deeper issue concerned the structure, meaning, and value of an MIT education in an age in which AI is reshaping intellectual work (MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training, 2026). MIT President Sally Kornbluth similarly described generative AI as a “watershed” moment for education and research, emphasizing the need to understand when AI should be used effectively and responsibly—and when it should not be used at all. (MIT Office of the President)

That shift in perspective is perhaps the most important feature of the report. The question is no longer simply, “How do we stop students from using AI?” It is becoming, “How do we design education so that using AI helps students become more capable human beings?”

From AI-Proof Assignments to AI-Aware Education

For decades, universities have often relied on assignments as evidence of learning. A student writes an essay, solves a problem set, creates a program, or prepares a presentation, and the instructor assumes that the submitted product reflects the student’s knowledge and skills. Generative AI disrupts this assumption. A polished essay may have been generated with AI. A computer program may have been produced partly or almost entirely by an AI system. A literature review may have been summarized by a language model. Even an apparently original argument may have emerged from a dialogue between student and machine.

The traditional response is understandable: restrict AI, require disclosure, or attempt to detect AI-generated work. But these measures alone cannot answer the educational question. If the assignment itself no longer measures the intended learning outcome, simply policing the technology does not restore the validity of the assessment.

The MIT report therefore points toward an AI-aware educational process—one in which learning objectives, assignments, assessments, and AI policies are deliberately redesigned for an environment in which AI exists. MIT’s official description of the report emphasizes precisely this need: educational processes must be reconsidered so that students are prepared for an AI-powered world. (MIT Office of the President)

This suggests a fundamental change in educational design. Instead of asking, “How can I make an assignment impossible for AI to complete?” an instructor might ask, “What evidence would demonstrate that the student understands, evaluates, improves, explains, and takes responsibility for the work?” That is a much more productive question.

The End of the Easy Homework Era

Generative AI does not necessarily make homework meaningless. It does, however, make some forms of homework less informative as measures of individual mastery. Consider a conventional programming assignment. A student receives a problem, writes code, submits the solution, and receives a grade. If an AI system can generate much of the code, the final product may tell the instructor less about the student’s actual understanding.

But the situation can also create an educational opportunity. The instructor can ask the student to explain the architecture, identify weaknesses in AI-generated code, test competing solutions, document the prompts used, compare alternatives, find security vulnerabilities, and defend design decisions. The assignment has now moved from production alone to production plus judgment.

This distinction is crucial. AI may automate portions of production while simultaneously increasing the importance of evaluation. A student who merely accepts an AI answer may learn less. A student who interrogates, tests, challenges, revises, and explains the AI output may learn more.

This is the educational meaning of MIT’s principle of “augmentation not automation.” The goal is not to replace human intellectual activity with machine output but to use AI in ways that strengthen human learning and capability (MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training, 2026). The principle is especially important because automation and augmentation are not the same educational process. Automation asks: “Can the machine do this for me?” Augmentation asks: “How can the machine help me become better at doing this?” The first can reduce human participation. The second can increase human capability.

From Answers to Questions

Traditional education often rewards students for finding correct answers. AI changes the economics of answering questions because machines can now produce plausible answers at extraordinary speed.

The scarce resource may therefore become something else: the ability to ask valuable questions. A student who asks an AI system, “Explain photosynthesis,” receives an answer. But a student who asks, “What assumptions are hidden in this explanation? What evidence would challenge it? How would the explanation change in another biological environment?” is engaging in a different intellectual activity.

The university of the AI era therefore needs to teach students not only how to obtain information but how to formulate questions that lead to discovery. This is especially important in research. AI can summarize literature, suggest hypotheses, generate code, analyze datasets, and assist with writing. Yet none of these capabilities eliminates the need for researchers to determine whether the question matters, whether the evidence is trustworthy, whether the methodology is appropriate, and whether the conclusion is justified. In other words, AI can accelerate research without automatically creating knowledge. The human researcher remains responsible for deciding what is worth knowing.

The Eight Principles and a New Educational Philosophy

The MIT report identifies eight guiding principles: 1. Be humble; 2. Be bold; 3. Put humanity front and center; 4. Lean into learning; 5. Teach with intentionality; 6. No one size fits all; 7. Augmentation not automation; and 8. Think beyond the classroom and the campus. (NSP) Together, these principles form something more significant than an AI policy. They represent a philosophy of education.

“Be humble” recognizes that the technology is changing too quickly for universities to assume that today’s policy will remain appropriate tomorrow. “Be bold” recognizes that uncertainty cannot become an excuse for educational inaction. “Put humanity front and center” insists that technological efficiency should not become the sole measure of educational success. “Lean into learning” redirects attention from the production of academic artifacts toward actual intellectual development. “Teach with intentionality” is particularly important. If students can obtain information instantly, instructors must become increasingly intentional about why a particular activity exists. “No one size fits all” recognizes that AI’s educational role differs across disciplines. The appropriate use of AI in philosophy, computer science, nursing, art, history, engineering, and laboratory science cannot simply be identical. “Augmentation not automation” establishes the relationship between human and machine, while “Think beyond the classroom and the campus” recognizes that university education must prepare students for workplaces and societies where AI will already be embedded.

The report’s principles therefore point toward a larger transformation: education should become less focused on demonstrating that students can reproduce information and more focused on demonstrating that they can use information wisely.

Human Presence Becomes More Valuable

There is an apparent paradox at the heart of AI education. As machines become better at conversation, universities may discover that genuine human relationships become more—not less—important. MIT’s recommendations explicitly call for centering people, community, and the residential experience. The report recognizes that education is not simply an information-transfer process. Universities are communities in which students encounter mentors, classmates, disagreements, cultures, unexpected ideas, failures, and responsibilities. (MIT Office of the President)

A student can ask an AI system to explain Kant, Shakespeare, cybersecurity, economics, or quantum mechanics at any hour of the day. But education is more than explanation. A professor can challenge a student’s assumption. A classmate can disagree. A research team can encounter failure. A laboratory can produce an unexpected result. A community can require cooperation. A mentor can recognize a student’s potential before the student recognizes it himself or herself. These experiences are difficult to reduce to generated text.

The future university may therefore become paradoxical: the more artificial intelligence enters education, the more important authentic human interaction may become.

The Professor Is Not Disappearing

Predictions about AI sometimes assume that teachers will eventually become unnecessary because machines can explain almost anything. The MIT report points toward a different possibility. The professor’s role may move away from being primarily an information provider and toward becoming a designer of intellectual experiences.

The professor asks: What should students discover? What should they struggle with? What should they experience directly? What should they debate? What should they build? What should they verify? What should they be responsible for? This does not make teaching easier. In some respects, it makes teaching more intellectually demanding.

A professor who simply delivers information can be partially replaced by information systems. A professor who designs meaningful learning experiences, guides inquiry, evaluates reasoning, mentors students, and creates intellectual community becomes more difficult to replace. The future professor may therefore need fewer slides and more questions.

Assessment Must Follow Learning

Perhaps the most immediate consequence of the MIT report concerns assessment. Universities have traditionally evaluated students through essays, examinations, projects, laboratories, presentations, and homework. These forms will not disappear, but their purposes may need to change.

An AI-aware assessment system might evaluate not only the final product but also the process of thinking. A student could submit:

• the original problem formulation;

• the AI prompts used;

• alternative AI responses;

• verification procedures;

• sources consulted;

• errors discovered;

• revisions made;

• reflections on what the student learned;

• and a final defense of the work.

Such assessments do not merely ask, “Did you produce the answer?” It asks, “Do you understand the answer, and can you defend it?” This distinction is fundamental.

A student who uses AI responsibly should not necessarily be treated as a student who has avoided learning. Conversely, a student who submits beautiful AI-generated work without understanding it should not automatically be considered successful. The educational objective is mastery, not merely artifact production.

AI Literacy Is Becoming a Core Academic Skill

MIT’s report also has implications for the meaning of literacy. For centuries, literacy meant the ability to read and write. Digital literacy later expanded this definition to include the ability to navigate computers, networks, and digital information.

The AI era requires another expansion. AI literacy means knowing what AI can do, what it cannot reliably do, how to interact with it, how to evaluate its output, how to verify its claims, how to recognize its limitations, and how to use it ethically.

But AI literacy should not become merely “prompt engineering.” Prompting is useful, but the deeper competency is judgment. A student who writes an elegant prompt but blindly accepts a false answer is not AI-literate in the fullest sense. A student who recognizes uncertainty, requests evidence, checks sources, compares outputs, and knows when not to use AI demonstrates a much deeper form of literacy.

This leads naturally to a broader educational sequence: Data → Information → Knowledge → Intelligence → Wisdom. AI can help transform data into information and information into candidate knowledge. But wisdom requires human judgment about meaning, consequences, values, and responsibility. That final step remains profoundly human.

The University as a Human-AI Laboratory

The most interesting implication of the MIT report may be that universities should not simply react to AI. They can become laboratories for discovering how humans and AI should work together. MIT’s recommendation for continuous reflection, iteration, and improvement is especially important because AI technology will continue changing faster than traditional academic policy cycles. (MIT Office of the President)

A university might therefore establish an ongoing Human-AI Learning Laboratory in which faculty and students systematically examine: How does AI affect learning? Which assignments benefit from AI? Which assignments become less meaningful? When does AI improve creativity? When does AI encourage dependence? Which assessment methods measure genuine understanding? What forms of AI use promote equity? What forms create new inequalities? How should students document AI assistance? When should AI use be prohibited? These questions should not be answered once. They should become part of the institution’s continuing educational research.

A Lesson for American Higher Education

The MIT report was written for MIT, not for every university. Its findings should therefore not automatically be treated as a universal prescription. MIT has distinctive traditions, resources, students, faculty, and residential structures. The report itself emphasizes that “no one size fits all.” (NSP)

Nevertheless, its underlying questions have broad relevance. Every university must decide what learning means when AI is ubiquitous. Every professor must determine what students need to know independently. Every department must reconsider how it assesses mastery. Every student must learn how to use AI without surrendering intellectual independence. And every institution must determine what aspects of education are uniquely human and therefore worth protecting and strengthening.

Community colleges, liberal arts colleges, research universities, professional schools, and online institutions will necessarily respond differently. Yet all face the same historical transformation: the distinction between human-produced and machine-produced intellectual work is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. The appropriate response is not necessarily to preserve the past unchanged. It is to preserve the purpose of education while redesigning its methods.

From AI Anxiety to Educational Wisdom

The public conversation about AI in education often swings between two extremes. One side fears that AI will destroy learning. The other imagines that AI will revolutionize education simply by making everything faster and more personalized. Both views can be incomplete.

Technology does not determine educational outcomes by itself. The design of the educational environment matters. A calculator can weaken arithmetic practice or enable students to explore more advanced mathematics. The internet can encourage shallow browsing or provide access to extraordinary knowledge. Generative AI can encourage intellectual dependence—or it can become a powerful partner in inquiry.

The decisive question is therefore not simply what AI can do. It is what humans choose to do with AI. That is why the MIT report matters beyond MIT. Its deeper contribution is an invitation to rethink education before technological convenience becomes educational philosophy.

What Should Remain Human?

The central question of the AI era may eventually become surprisingly simple: What should remain human when machines can do more and more of what humans once did? The answer cannot simply be “everything.”

Human beings have always used tools to extend their abilities. Writing extended memory. Books extended knowledge. Computers extended calculation. Networks extended communication. AI extends several of these capacities simultaneously. The goal, therefore, should not be to isolate human beings from machines.

It should be to ensure that human beings remain capable of judgment, responsibility, curiosity, empathy, creativity, skepticism, imagination, and moral choice while using increasingly powerful machines. This is why the MIT report’s emphasis on humanity is more than a philosophical statement. It is an educational strategy.

If AI can produce an essay, students should learn how to develop an argument. If AI can write code, students should learn how systems work and how to test them. If AI can summarize a book, students should learn how to interpret it. If AI can generate an image, students should learn how to view. If AI can propose a hypothesis, researchers should learn how to challenge it. If AI can give an answer, students should learn when to ask a better question. And if AI can imitate human wisdom, education must become even more serious about cultivating the real thing.

From Data to Wisdom

The MIT report arrives at an important historical moment. Universities are standing between two educational worlds. In the first, knowledge is scarce and teachers are primary gateways to information. In the second, information is abundant and intelligent machines are increasingly capable of generating explanations, code, images, arguments, and recommendations. The university cannot remain unchanged between these worlds. But neither should it surrender its human purpose.

The task ahead is not to build an education system in which humans compete with machines at everything machines do well. It is to create an education system in which humans learn to work with machines while developing capabilities that give those tools direction and meaning. This is ultimately a question of civilization, not merely technology.

The MIT report’s most enduring lesson may therefore be expressed in a simple progression: AI can generate information. Education must cultivate understanding. Experience must cultivate judgment. Community must cultivate responsibility. And wisdom must determine how intelligence is used.

The future of education will not be decided by whether universities permit or prohibit artificial intelligence. It will be decided by whether universities can teach a generation to use extraordinary artificial intelligence without losing ordinary human wisdom. That may be the real challenge—and the real opportunity—of education in the age of AI.

References

MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. (2026, August 13). Report of MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://aiandeducation.mit.edu/report/

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2026, January 14). Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. MIT Organization Chart. https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/committee-ai-use-teaching-learning-and-research-training

Kornbluth, S. (2026, August 25). AI and education: A watershed moment for MIT. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://president.mit.edu/writing-speeches/ai-and-education-watershed-moment-mit

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2026, August 26). MIT AI Community Hub.

https://aihub.mit.edu/

AI가 교실에 들어온다면, 무엇이 인간으로 남아야 하는가?

생성형 AI 시대의 교육을 다시 생각하다

초록

생성형 인공지능은 대학이 교육과정, 평가 방식, 학사정책을 다시 설계하는 속도보다 훨씬 빠르게 고등교육을 변화시키고 있다. 2026년 8월 13일 발표된 MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training 보고서는 이러한 변화에 대한 중요한 대응을 제시한다. 이 보고서는 AI를 단순히 금지해야 할 기술이나 무조건 도입해야 할 기술로 바라보지 않는다. 오히려 AI가 과거에는 학생의 지식과 능력을 보여주는 것으로 여겨졌던 많은 과제를 수행할 수 있게 된 시대에 ‘교육의 목적은 무엇인가?’라는 더 근본적인 질문을 던진다. MIT는 겸손, 대담함, 인간 중심성, 의도적 교육, 학습 중심 설계, 그리고 “자동화가 아닌 증강(augmentation not automation)” 등을 포함한 여덟 가지 원칙을 제시한다. 또한 AI 시대에 맞게 교육 과정을 변화시키고, 사람과 공동체를 강화하며, 지속적인 성찰과 개선을 위한 체계를 구축할 것을 제안한다(MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training, 2026). 이 보고서의 가장 중요한 교훈은 대학이 AI를 어떻게 통제해야 하는가에만 있지 않다. 오히려 AI가 존재하는 시대에 학습이란 무엇인가를 다시 정의해야 한다는 점에 있다. AI가 풍부한 교육 환경에서 대학의 가장 중요한 책임은 지식의 전달을 넘어 판단력, 호기심, 창의성, 윤리적 책임, 인간관계, 그리고 기계의 지능을 활용하면서도 자신의 주체성을 잃지 않는 능력을 길러주는 데 있을 것이다.

주요어: 인공지능, 생성형 AI, 고등교육, 리터러시, 디지털 리터러시, AI 리터러시, 인간 중심 교육, 평가, 학문적 진실성, 학습, MIT, 교육 혁신

질문 뒤에 있는 질문

모든 거대한 기술혁명은 결국 교육의 위기를 만들어낸다. 인쇄술은 누가 지식을 소유할 수 있는지를 바꾸었다. 산업화는 학교가 사회에 제공해야 할 교육의 내용을 변화시켰다. 컴퓨터는 정보를 생산하고 처리하는 방식을 바꾸었다. 생성형 AI는 또 하나의 거대한 변화를 일으키고 있다. 그러나 이번 변화에는 중요한 차이가 있다. 기계가 더 이상 단순히 정보를 저장하고 계산하거나 검색하는 데 그치지 않는다는 것이다. 이제 AI는 설명하고, 요약하고, 번역하고, 프로그램을 작성하고, 이미지를 만들고, 논리를 구성하며, 점점 더 연구와 창작 과정에도 참여하고 있다. 이러한 변화는 대학에 불편한 질문을 던진다. “기계가 답을 만들어낼 수 있다면, 학생은 무엇을 배워야 하는가?”

MIT의 2026년 보고서가 중요한 이유는 이 질문을 단순히 “학생들이 ChatGPT를 사용해도 되는가?”라는 문제로 축소하지 않기 때문이다. MIT 특별위원회는 처음에는 AI의 현재 사용 현황을 조사하고, 교육과 평가에서의 혁신을 검토하며, AI 사용 정책을 제안하는 임무를 맡았다. 그러나 위원회는 더 근본적인 문제가 AI 시대에 MIT 교육의 구조와 의미, 그리고 가치 자체를 다시 생각하는 것이라고 보았다(MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training, 2026).

이러한 관점의 전환이야말로 이 보고서에서 가장 중요한 부분이다. 이제 질문은 단순히 “학생들이 AI를 사용하지 못하게 하려면 어떻게 해야 하는가?”가 아니다. 오히려 다음과 같은 질문으로 바뀌어야 한다. “AI를 사용하는 것이 학생을 더욱 능력 있는 인간으로 성장시키도록 교육을 어떻게 설계할 것인가?”

AI를 막는 과제에서 AI를 고려하는 교육으로

전통적으로 대학은 과제를 학생의 학습을 증명하는 수단으로 활용해 왔다. 학생이 에세이를 쓰고, 문제를 풀고, 프로그램을 작성하거나, 발표를 준비하면 교수는 제출된 결과물이 학생의 지식과 능력을 반영한다고 가정한다.

생성형 AI는 이러한 가정을 흔들고 있다. 잘 작성된 에세이가 AI로 만들어졌을 수도 있다. 컴퓨터 프로그램이 AI에 의해 상당 부분 작성되었을 수도 있다. 문헌연구가 AI에 의해 요약되었을 수도 있다. 심지어 독창적으로 보이는 주장도 학생과 AI의 대화 과정에서 만들어졌을 가능성이 있다.

따라서 AI 사용을 제한하고, 사용 사실을 공개하도록 하거나, AI가 생성한 글을 탐지하려는 대응은 이해할 수 있다. 그러나 이것만으로는 교육적 문제를 해결할 수 없다. 과제 자체가 더 이상 학생이 습득해야 할 학습성과를 제대로 측정하지 못한다면, 기술을 감시하는 것만으로는 평가의 타당성을 회복할 수 없기 때문이다.

MIT 보고서는 따라서 ‘AI를 고려한 교육 과정(AI-aware educational process)’으로 나아갈 필요성을 제시한다. 즉, AI가 존재하는 환경을 전제로 학습목표, 과제, 평가, AI 사용정책을 의도적으로 다시 설계해야 한다는 것이다.

여기에서 교육설계의 근본적인 변화가 시작된다. 교수는 “AI가 절대로 해결할 수 없는 과제를 어떻게 만들 것인가?”라고 묻기보다 다음과 같이 물을 수 있다. “학생이 이 문제를 이해하고, 평가하고, 개선하고, 설명하고, 그 결과에 책임을 질 수 있다는 사실을 어떻게 증명하게 할 것인가?” 이것이 훨씬 생산적인 질문이다.

쉬운 숙제의 시대는 끝나는가?

생성형 AI가 숙제를 무의미하게 만드는 것은 아니다. 그러나 일부 전통적인 숙제는 학생 개인의 숙련도를 측정하는 도구로서 이전보다 정보가치를 잃을 수 있다. 예를 들어 전통적인 프로그래밍 과제를 생각해 보자. 학생은 문제를 받고 코드를 작성한 뒤 결과물을 제출하고 점수를 받는다. 그러나 AI가 코드의 상당 부분을 생성할 수 있다면 최종 결과물만으로는 학생이 실제로 무엇을 이해하고 있는지 판단하기 어려워진다.

그러나 바로 여기에서 새로운 교육의 기회가 생긴다. 교수는 학생에게 AI가 작성한 코드의 구조를 설명하게 하고, 약점을 찾아내게 하고, 서로 다른 해결책을 시험하게 하고, 사용한 프롬프트를 기록하게 하고, 보안 취약점을 찾아내게 하며, 설계 결정을 스스로 설명하도록 요구할 수 있다.

그러면 과제의 중심이 ‘단순한 생산(production)’에서 ‘생산과 판단(production plus judgment)’으로 이동한다. 이 차이는 매우 중요하다. AI는 생산의 일부를 자동화할 수 있지만, 동시에 평가의 중요성을 더욱 높일 수 있다. AI의 답을 그대로 받아들이는 학생은 오히려 덜 배울 수 있다. 반면 AI의 결과를 질문하고, 검증하고, 비판하고, 수정하고, 설명하는 학생은 더 많이 배울 가능성이 있다.

이것이 MIT가 제시한 ‘자동화가 아닌 증강(augmentation not automation)’이라는 원칙의 교육적 의미이다. 목표는 인간의 지적 활동을 기계의 결과물로 대체하는 것이 아니라, AI를 활용하여 인간의 학습과 능력을 강화하는 것이다. 자동화는 이렇게 묻는다. “기계가 나 대신 이것을 할 수 있는가?” 증강은 이렇게 묻는다. “기계가 내가 이것을 더 잘할 수 있도록 어떻게 도울 수 있는가?” 첫 번째 질문은 인간의 참여를 감소시킬 수 있다. 두 번째 질문은 인간의 능력을 확대할 수 있다.

답에서 질문으로

전통적인 교육은 학생이 올바른 답을 찾는 능력을 중요하게 평가해 왔다. 그러나 AI는 매우 빠른 속도로 그럴듯한 답을 만들어낼 수 있다. 그렇다면 AI 시대에 더욱 희소해지는 능력은 무엇일까? 어쩌면 그것은 좋은 질문을 만드는 능력일 것이다. 학생이 AI에게 “광합성을 설명해 주세요”라고 질문하면 AI는 답을 제공한다. 그러나 학생이 다음과 같이 질문한다면 상황은 달라진다. “이 설명에는 어떤 가정이 숨어 있는가?” “어떤 증거가 이 설명을 반박할 수 있는가?” “다른 생물학적 환경에서는 이 설명이 어떻게 달라지는가?” 이것은 완전히 다른 수준의 지적 활동이다.

따라서 AI 시대의 대학은 학생들에게 정보를 얻는 방법만 가르쳐서는 안 된다. 발견으로 이어지는 질문을 만드는 방법을 가르쳐야 한다. 이는 특히 연구에서 중요하다. AI는 문헌을 요약하고, 가설을 제안하고, 코드를 생성하고, 데이터를 분석하고, 논문 작성까지 도울 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 능력이 연구자에게 질문의 가치, 증거의 신뢰성, 방법론의 적절성, 결론의 타당성을 자동으로 판단해 주는 것은 아니다. AI는 연구를 빠르게 만들 수 있지만, 자동으로 지식을 만들어내지는 않는다. 무엇을 알아낼 가치가 있는지를 결정하는 것은 여전히 인간 연구자의 책임이다.

여덟 가지 원칙과 새로운 교육철학

MIT 보고서는 다음과 같은 여덟 가지 원칙을 제시한다.

1. 겸손하라(Be humble).
2. 대담하라(Be bold).
3. 인간을 중심에 두라(Put humanity front and center).
4. 학습에 집중하라(Lean into learning).
5. 의도적으로 가르쳐라(Teach with intentionality).
6. 하나의 방식으로 모든 것을 해결하려 하지 마라(No one size fits all).
7. 자동화가 아닌 증강을 추구하라(Augmentation not automation).
8. 교실과 캠퍼스를 넘어 생각하라(Think beyond the classroom and the campus).

이 원칙들은 단순한 AI 사용정책 이상의 의미를 가진다. 그것들은 하나의 새로운 교육철학을 구성한다.

“겸손”은 기술이 너무 빠르게 변화하기 때문에 오늘의 정책이 내일도 적절하다고 가정해서는 안 된다는 사실을 인정한다. “대담함”은 불확실성을 교육적 행동을 미루는 이유로 삼아서는 안 된다는 것을 의미한다. “인간 중심성”은 기술적 효율성만을 교육의 성공 기준으로 삼아서는 안 된다는 점을 강조한다. “학습에 집중하라”는 것은 학생이 만든 결과물보다 실제로 무엇을 배웠는지에 관심을 돌리게 한다. 특히 “의도적으로 가르쳐라”는 원칙은 중요하다. 학생이 정보를 즉시 얻을 수 있다면 교수는 각각의 교육활동이 왜 필요한지를 더욱 분명하게 설계해야 한다. “하나의 방식으로 모든 것을 해결하지 마라”는 원칙 역시 중요하다. 철학, 컴퓨터과학, 간호학, 예술, 역사, 공학, 실험과학에서 AI의 역할은 서로 다를 수밖에 없다. “자동화가 아닌 증강”은 인간과 기계의 관계를 규정한다. “교실과 캠퍼스를 넘어 생각하라”는 원칙은 대학이 AI가 이미 깊숙이 들어간 직장과 사회를 준비해야 한다는 사실을 보여준다.

따라서 이 보고서의 여덟 가지 원칙은 하나의 방향을 제시한다. 교육은 학생이 정보를 반복해서 재생산하는 능력보다 정보를 현명하게 사용하는 능력을 길러주는 방향으로 이동해야 한다.

인간의 존재는 오히려 더 중요해진다

AI 교육의 중심에는 하나의 역설이 존재한다. 기계가 대화를 더욱 잘하게 될수록 대학은 오히려 진정한 인간관계의 중요성을 더 강하게 발견할 수 있다. MIT 보고서는 사람과 공동체를 교육의 중심에 놓고, 대학의 실제 공동체 경험을 강화할 필요성을 강조한다. 교육은 단지 단순한 정보전달 과정만이 아니기 때문이다.

학생은 교수에게 질문한다. 친구와 논쟁한다. 연구팀에서 실패한다. 실험실에서 예상하지 못한 결과를 경험한다. 다른 문화와 가치관을 가진 사람을 만난다. 공동체 안에서 협력해야 한다. 멘토는 학생 자신도 아직 발견하지 못한 가능성을 발견해 줄 수 있다. 이러한 경험은 단순한 텍스트 생성으로 쉽게 대체하기 어렵다. 따라서 미래의 대학에는 역설이 생길 수 있다. 인공지능이 교육에 더 깊이 들어올수록 진정한 인간적 상호작용은 더욱 중요해질 것이다.

교수는 사라지는가?

AI에 관한 일부 미래 예측은 기계가 거의 모든 것을 설명할 수 있기 때문에 결국 교수가 필요하지 않게 될 것이라고 가정한다. MIT 보고서는 다른 가능성을 보여준다.

교수의 역할은 단순한 정보 제공자에서 지적 경험을 설계하는 사람으로 이동할 수 있다. 교수는 다음과 같은 질문을 던져야 한다. 학생들이 무엇을 발견해야 하는가? 무엇을 스스로 고민하게 해야 하는가? 무엇을 직접 경험하게 해야 하는가? 무엇을 토론하게 해야 하는가? 무엇을 만들어야 하는가? 무엇을 검증해야 하는가? 그리고 무엇에 대해 책임을 져야 하는가?

이러한 교육은 결코 쉬운 일이 아니다. 오히려 교수에게 더 높은 수준의 지적 설계를 요구할 수 있다. 단순히 정보를 전달하는 교수는 정보시스템으로 부분적으로 대체될 수 있다. 그러나 의미 있는 학습경험을 설계하고, 탐구를 지도하며, 사고를 평가하고, 학생을 멘토링하고, 지적 공동체를 만드는 교수는 쉽게 대체하기 어렵다. 따라서 미래의 교수는 더 적은 슬라이드와 더 많은 질문을 필요로 할지도 모른다.

평가는 학습을 따라가야 한다

MIT 보고서가 가져올 가장 직접적인 변화 중 하나는 평가일 것이다. 대학은 오랫동안 에세이, 시험, 프로젝트, 실험, 발표, 숙제를 통해 학생을 평가해 왔다. 이러한 방법들이 사라질 필요는 없지만 그 목적은 변화할 수 있다.

AI 시대의 평가는 최종 결과물뿐만 아니라 사고의 과정도 평가할 수 있다. 학생은 다음을 함께 제출할 수 있다.

• 처음 설정한 문제

• 사용한 AI 프롬프트

• AI가 생성한 여러가지 답변

• 검증 과정

• 참고한 자료

• 발견한 오류

• 수정한 내용

• 학습에 대한 성찰

• 최종 결과에 대한 자신의 설명.

이러한 평가의 질문은 단순히 “답을 만들었는가?”가 아니다. 더 중요한 질문은 “그 답을 이해하고 있으며, 그 답을 스스로 설명하고 방어할 수 있는가?”이다. 이 차이는 매우 중요하다. AI를 책임 있게 사용한 학생이 반드시 학습을 회피했다고 볼 수는 없다. 반대로 훌륭한 AI 결과물을 제출했다고 해서 학생이 그것을 실제로 이해하고 있다고 자동으로 판단해서도 안 된다. 교육의 목적은 결과물 자체가 아니라 학습과 숙달이어야 하기 때문이다.

AI 리터러시는 새로운 핵심 학업능력이다

MIT 보고서는 또한 문해력의 의미를 다시 생각하게 한다. 수백 년 동안 문해력은 읽고 쓰는 능력을 의미했다. 이후 디지털 기술의 발전과 함께 컴퓨터와 네트워크, 디지털 정보를 활용하는 능력까지 포함하는 ‘디지털 리터러시’가 등장했다.

AI 시대에는 여기에 또 하나의 층위가 추가된다. ‘AI 리터러시’는 AI가 무엇을 할 수 있고 무엇을 할 수 없는지 이해하고, AI와 효과적으로 상호작용하며, 결과를 평가하고, 주장을 검증하고, 한계를 인식하고, 윤리적으로 활용하는 능력이다.

그러나 AI 리터러시는 단순히 “프롬트를 잘 작성하는 능력”을 의미하지 않는다. 프롬트 작성은 유용하지만 더 깊은 능력은 판단력이다. 아름다운 프롬트를 작성하고도 잘못된 AI 답변을 그대로 믿는다면 완전한 의미의 AI 리터러시라고 하기 어렵다.

반대로 AI의 불확실성을 인식하고, 증거를 요구하고, 출처를 확인하고, 여러 답변을 비교하고, 언제 AI를 사용하지 말아야 하는지를 판단하는 학생은 훨씬 높은 수준의 AI 리터러시를 보여준다. 이러한 관점은 다음과 같은 교육적 발전과 연결될 수 있다: 데이터 → 정보 → 지식 → 지능 → 지혜.

AI는 데이터를 정보로 바꾸고 정보로부터 지식의 후보를 만들어내는 데 도움을 줄 수 있다. 그러나 마지막 단계인 지혜는 의미와 결과, 가치와 책임을 판단해야 한다. 이 마지막 단계는 여전히 인간에게 깊이 연결되어 있다.

대학은 인간-AI 학습 실험실이 될 수 있다

MIT 보고서가 보여주는 가장 흥미로운 가능성 중 하나는 대학이 AI에 단순히 반응하는 기관이 아니라 인간과 AI가 어떻게 함께 일해야 하는지를 발견하는 실험실이 될 수 있다는 점이다. MIT는 지속적인 성찰, 반복, 개선의 필요성을 강조한다. AI 기술은 전통적인 대학 정책이 만들어지는 속도보다 훨씬 빠르게 변화하기 때문이다.

대학은 예를 들어 Human-AI Learning Laboratory와 같은 지속적인 교육연구 체계를 운영할 수 있다. 그 안에서 교수와 학생은 다음과 같은 질문을 계속 연구할 수 있다.

AI는 학습에 어떤 영향을 미치는가?

어떤 과제가 AI의 도움으로 더 좋은 학습경험이 되는가?

어떤 과제는 AI 때문에 교육적 의미를 잃는가?

AI는 언제 창의성을 향상시키는가?

AI는 언제 인간의 의존성을 증가시키는가?

어떤 평가가 실제 이해도를 가장 잘 측정하는가?

AI는 교육의 형평성에 어떤 영향을 미치는가?

어떤 AI 사용은 새로운 불평등을 만들어내는가?

학생은 AI의 도움을 어떻게 기록해야 하는가?

언제 AI 사용을 제한하거나 금지해야 하는가?

이 질문들에는 한 번의 정답이 존재하지 않는다. 오히려 이러한 질문 자체가 대학의 지속적인 교육연구 과제가 되어야 한다.

미국 고등교육을 위한 교훈

MIT 보고서는 MIT라는 특정 대학을 대상으로 작성되었다. 따라서 보고서의 모든 내용을 모든 대학에 동일하게 적용할 수 있는 보편적인 처방으로 받아들여서는 안 된다. MIT는 고유한 교육 전통, 학생, 교수진, 자원, 캠퍼스 문화를 가지고 있다. 보고서 자체도 “하나의 방식으로 모든 것을 해결할 수 없다”고 강조한다.

그럼에도 불구하고 보고서가 제기하는 근본적인 질문은 광범위한 의미를 갖는다. AI가 보편화된 시대에 학습이란 무엇인가? 학생이 독립적으로 습득해야 할 지식과 능력은 무엇인가? 각 학과는 어떻게 학생의 숙달도를 평가해야 하는가? 학생은 AI를 어떻게 활용하면서도 자신의 지적 독립성을 유지해야 하는가? 대학은 어떤 교육 경험이 본질적으로 인간적이며 따라서 더욱 보호하고 강화해야 할 가치가 있는지를 어떻게 결정해야 하는가?

커뮤니티 칼리지, 리버럴아츠 칼리지, 연구중심 대학, 전문대학원, 온라인 대학은 서로 다른 방식으로 대응할 것이다. 그러나 모두 같은 역사적 변화에 직면하고 있다. 인간이 생산한 지적 결과물과 기계가 생산한 지적 결과물 사이의 경계가 점점 더 흐려지고 있는 것이다. 이에 대한 적절한 대응은 과거의 교육을 그대로 보존하는 것이 아니다. 보존해야 할 것은 교육의 목적이고, 변화시켜야 할 것은 그 목적을 실현하는 방법이다.

AI에 대한 불안에서 교육적 지혜로

교육에서 AI에 관한 대중적 논의는 종종 두 극단 사이를 오간다. 한쪽에서는 AI가 학습을 파괴할 것이라고 우려한다. 다른 한쪽에서는 AI가 모든 것을 더 빠르고 개인화된 방식으로 만들어 교육을 혁신할 것이라고 기대한다. 그러나 두 관점 모두 충분하지 않을 수 있다.

기술 그 자체가 교육의 결과를 결정하지 않는다. 중요한 것은 교육환경을 어떻게 설계하는가이다. 계산기는 산술 연습을 약화시킬 수도 있지만 더 높은 수준의 수학을 탐구할 수 있도록 도울 수도 있다. 인터넷은 피상적인 검색을 조장할 수도 있지만 동시에 놀라운 지식에 접근하게 할 수도 있다. 생성형 AI도 마찬가지다. AI는 지적 의존성을 증가시킬 수도 있고, 반대로 탐구를 위한 강력한 동반자가 될 수도 있다.

따라서 결정적인 질문은 단순히 “AI가 무엇을 할 수 있는가?”가 아니다. 더 중요한 질문은 “인간은 AI를 가지고 무엇을 하기로 선택하는가?”이다. 바로 이 점에서 MIT 보고서는 MIT를 넘어서는 의미를 가진다. 기술적 편리성이 교육철학 자체가 되기 전에 교육을 다시 생각하자는 초대이기 때문이다.

무엇이 인간으로 남아야 하는가?

AI 시대의 궁극적인 질문은 의외로 간단할 수 있다. “기계가 인간이 과거에 하던 일을 점점 더 많이 수행할 수 있게 되었을 때, 무엇이 인간으로 남아야 하는가?” 답이 “모든 것”일 수는 없다. 인간은 언제나 도구를 사용하여 자신의 능력을 확장해 왔다.

문자는 기억을 확장했다. 책은 지식을 확장했다. 컴퓨터는 계산능력을 확장했다. 네트워크는 의사소통 능력을 확장했다. AI는 이러한 여러 능력을 동시에 확장하고 있다. 따라서 목표는 인간을 기계로부터 고립시키는 것이 아니다. 목표는 인간이 점점 더 강력해지는 기계를 사용하면서도 판단력, 책임감, 호기심, 공감, 창의성, 비판적 사고, 상상력, 도덕적 선택능력을 잃지 않도록 하는 것이다.

그렇기 때문에 MIT 보고서가 강조하는 인간 중심성은 단순한 철학적 선언이 아니다. 그것은 하나의 ‘교육전략’이다. AI가 에세이를 쓸 수 있다면 학생은 논증을 만들어내는 법을 배워야 한다. AI가 코드를 작성할 수 있다면 학생은 시스템이 어떻게 작동하는지, 그리고 그 시스템을 어떻게 검증하는지를 배워야 한다. AI가 책을 요약할 수 있다면 학생은 책을 해석하는 법을 배워야 한다. AI가 이미지를 생성할 수 있다면 학생은 관찰하는 법을 배워야 한다. AI가 가설을 제안할 수 있다면 연구자는 그 가설에 질문을 던지는 법을 배워야 한다. AI가 답을 제공할 수 있다면 학생은 언제 더 좋은 질문을 해야 하는지를 배워야 한다. 그리고 AI가 인간의 지혜를 흉내 낼 수 있다면 교육은 오히려 진짜 지혜를 길러내는 일을 더욱 진지하게 받아들여야 한다.

데이터에서 지혜로

MIT 보고서는 대학이 역사적으로 중요한 순간에 서 있음을 보여준다. 한쪽에는 지식이 부족하고 교사가 정보에 접근하는 주요 통로였던 교육세계가 있다. 다른 한쪽에는 정보가 넘쳐나고 지능적인 기계가 설명, 코드, 이미지, 논리, 추천 등을 만들어내는 교육세계가 있다. 대학은 이 두 세계 사이에서 과거와 똑같은 모습으로 머물 수 없다. 그러나 그렇다고 해서 인간적인 교육의 목적을 포기해서도 안 된다.

앞으로의 과제는 인간이 기계가 잘하는 모든 일을 기계와 경쟁하도록 만드는 것이 아니다. 오히려 인간이 기계와 함께 일하는 법을 배우면서, 그 강력한 도구에 방향과 의미를 부여할 수 있는 능력을 갖추도록 하는 교육체계를 만드는 것이다. 이것은 단순한 기술의 문제가 아니다. 궁극적으로는 문명의 문제이다.

MIT 보고서의 가장 오래 지속될 수 있는 교훈은 다음과 같이 표현할 수 있을 것이다.

AI는 정보를 생성할 수 있다.
교육은 이해를 길러야 한다.
경험은 판단을 길러야 한다.
공동체는 책임을 길러야 한다.
그리고 지혜는 지능이 어떻게 사용될 것인지를 결정해야 한다.

AI 시대의 교육은 대학이 인공지능을 허용하느냐 금지하느냐에 의해 결정되지 않을 것이다. 교육의 미래는 대학이 한 세대의 학생들에게 엄청난 인공지능을 활용하면서도 평범하지만 소중한 인간의 지혜를 잃지 않는 법을 가르칠 수 있는가에 의해 결정될 것이다. 아마 이것이 AI 시대 교육이 직면한 가장 큰 도전이자 동시에 가장 큰 기회일 것이다.

참고문헌

MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. (2026, August 13). Report of MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://aiandeducation.mit.edu/report/

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2026, January 14). Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. MIT Organization Chart. https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/committee-ai-use-teaching-learning-and-research-training

Kornbluth, S. (2026, August 25). AI and education: A watershed moment for MIT. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://president.mit.edu/writing-speeches/ai-and-education-watershed-moment-mit

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2026, August 26). MIT AI Community Hub.

https://aihub.mit.edu/

2026년 10월 7일

{솔티}

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

© K-GSP (K-Global Scholars and Professionals) Forum. All rights reserved. 2026.

Suggested Citation:

Choi, Y. B. (2026, October 7). When AI Enters the Classroom, What Should Remain Human?: Rethinking Education in the Age of Generative AI. K-GSP.

Executive Summary

Min Jin Lee’s new novel, American Hagwon, follows a Korean family whose faith in education carries them from Seoul to Sydney to Orange County. The new novel alongside Lee’s recent interview, this review takes a human resource development (HRD) perspective. It argues that Korean diaspora families often outsource both learning and career choice, and that the cost surfaces later, when young professionals must build an identity of their own. In an age of AI, that self-built identity matters more than ever.

Keywords: hagwon, korean diaspora, professional identity, career self-leadership, artificial intelligence

New Books Arrives

On September 29, 2026, Min Jin Lee, the Korean American author of Pachinko (2017) and Free Food for Millionaires (2007), published her third novel, American Hagwon. Cardinal, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, published the 656-page book.

It follows the Koh family from 1992 to 2007. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, in Korea it is known as IMF crisis, wrecks their comfortable middle-class life in Seoul, they move to Sydney and then to Orange County, California, still trusting education to secure their children’s future.

The novel is the third book in Lee’s planned “Diaspora Quartet,” four stand-alone novels linked by the experience of being scattered across borders. Its title uses the Korean word hagwon, the private learning centers where much of Korean education takes place outside the classroom. Through that word, Lee asks what a good life looks like when a family puts everything into schooling, work and sacrifice in a new country.

Source: BigLittleReads’s Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/BigLittleReads/posts/min-jin-lees-latest-novel-american-hagwon-is-officially-releasing-today-septembe/122219050160433264/

1. A Novel About Where Learning Happens

“A hagwon is a learning center,” Min Jin Lee explained on Radio Atlantic. “Anytime you pay somebody to teach you something that’s not in regular school, that’s a hagwon” (Rosin, 2026, 05:46). Her new novel, American Hagwon, released on September 29, 2026, follows the Koh family from Seoul through the 1997 Asian financial crisis to Sydney and Southern California, where education remains the family’s plan for survival (Lee, 2026).

Dialogue with Min Jin Lee

Source: Rosin, H. (Host). (2026, October). Min Jin Lee’s underdog morality [Audio podcast episode]. In Radio Atlantic. The Atlantic.

As an HRD scholar, I sense the book as a story about who owns learning. In Korea, much of it is paid for outside the school. In Korean America, much of it is arranged by parents and the immigrant community. That arrangement often works well through college. It becomes harder when a young adult enters professional life and must answer a question no hagwon can answer for them: who am I at work? With AI now able to take over much of our routine thinking, that question carries new weight.

2. Three Lines an HRD Scholar Should Underline

Three passages from Lee’s interview speak directly to learning, career development, and identity. Each opens a different part of the problem.

2.1 Learning Outsourced, From Seoul to the Taekwondo Studio

“If you’re a working parent and you have kids, hagwons are a kind of childcare. And also because you can’t help the kids with homework, so then parents will actually outsource this, and it becomes a low-cost way to get tutoring.” (Rosin, 2026, 07:47)

Lee names the mechanism plainly: outsourcing. In Korea, this produces a paradox. Admission to elite schools is presented as proof of merit, yet much of the learning behind that merit is purchased outside school. Lee describes education in Korea as “almost a faith,” a token families believe will make everything work out (Rosin, 2026, 14:38). The paradox is real, and families live inside it every day.

The same logic travels to America in a different form. In many Korean American communities I have observed, the taekwondo studio functions as more than a martial arts school. Children arrive after school, finish homework, practice, and wait for working parents. Where affordable after-school care is hard to find, the dojang quietly does two jobs: learning center and childcare center.

Vidoe Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/ksas2yii2dM?si=40Gl72W0RbduEPt6

2.2 Careers Outsourced: The Parachute Child Reconsidered

“These young kids, they don’t feel heard. They’re told a lot of things, but they’re not heard. So when you have this magical person who went to the famous school that your parents want you to go to, and they really listen to you and they ask you questions like, ‘So why do you want to go to college? Maybe it’s not a good time,’ and the kid’s like, ‘What do you mean I have a choice?’” (Rosin, 2026, 19:00)

Lee describes “parachute children,” young students sent abroad to live with a guardian so they can access a foreign education (Rosin, 2026, 09:24). It is tempting to see them as immature. I see them differently. Their career choices were outsourced, first to parents and then to an immigrant community with clear expectations about which schools and professions count.

For many, this arrangement holds through college, because the path is clearly marked. Lee notes a harder outcome too: some students “crash” after their first year, exhausted by years of overload (Rosin, 2026, 19:00). Even those who succeed meet the real test later, when a professional career asks them to lead themselves without a script.

2.3 Given Identity Meets Earned Identity in the Age of AI

“I think diaspora is now the modern person’s permanent condition... we are being scattered by modern society, so we have to study the subject.” (Rosin, 2026, 13:01)

Diaspora professionals carry a double burden. They negotiate a social and ethnic identity within an immigrant society, the kind of group membership that social identity theory treats as central to how people see themselves (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). At the same time, they must build a professional identity in workplaces that reward self-direction (Hall, 2004).

AI sharpens this tension. In my forthcoming Human Resource Development Review article, I describe technology-mediated identity formation: where AI narrows traditional entry pathways, individuals must actively construct identities around their distinctive human contributions (Choi, in press). AI makes it easy to outsource thinking. What it cannot supply is self-determination. A “given” identity, handed down by family and community, will increasingly collide with an “earned” identity built through one’s own choices. Diaspora professionals, whose given identities often arrived with the strongest expectations, may feel that collision first.

3. Toward a Healthy Identity for the Next Generation

Lee warns that Asian parenting “often becomes pathologized. It’s decontextualized” (Rosin, 2026, 12:31). Outsiders see the outcomes and the data, but not the sacrifice or the logic behind them. I take her point seriously. The families in her novel, and in our own communities, made reasonable decisions under real constraints. Outsourcing learning was often the best option available.

Her warning also reminds us how easily diaspora experience is pushed to the margins of public conversation. If we do not study our own experience, others will interpret it for us, usually without context.

Figure 4

Human-AI Career Integration (HACI) Framework

Note. Excerpted from Yoo & Choi (2026), From career ladders to digital jungle gyms. The HACI framework proposes that adaptive collaboration competency, technology-mediated identity formation, and contextual support systems interact reciprocally over time to shape career development outcomes.

That responsibility falls on Korean diaspora scholars and professionals. The next generation does not need less ambition. It needs help moving from a given identity to an earned one: mentors who listen, as Lee’s best hagwon teachers do, career education that asks “why” before “where,” and workplaces that treat self-direction as a skill to be developed rather than assumed. In an age when machines can do more of our thinking, a healthy identity may be the most important thing we help our children build for themselves. No hagwon can sell it.

References

Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.006

Lee, M. J. (2026). American hagwon. Cardinal.

Rosin, H. (Host). (2026, October). Min Jin Lee’s underdog morality [Audio podcast episode]. In Radio Atlantic. The Atlantic.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Yoo, S. J., & Choi, J. (2026). From career ladders to digital jungle gyms: An HRD theoretical framework for understanding human-AI interaction in career development. Human Resource Development Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843261491397

About the Author

Note. This 10-second video was created with support from Google Gemini, using Nano Banana-generated imagery, for illustrative purposes.

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD, MBA, ME · Managing Editor of K-GSP

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD, MBA, ME, is Managing Editor of K-GSP. With more than 25 years of industry and consulting experience, he specializes in leadership development, human resource management and development, and organizational behavior. His research focuses on workforce resilience, self-directed leadership, and career development in AI-mediated workplaces. Full list of his K-GSP columns: https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_jerry_choi

Suggested Citation

Choi, J. (2026, October [Day]). Outsourced learning, unfinished identity: Min Jin Lee’s American Hagwonthrough an HRD lens. K-GSP Forum.

Original Article:

Choi(2026) Hagwon Outsourced Learning Unfinished Identity Kgsp

702KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

한글요약

맡겨진 배움, 미완의 정체성: HRD의 눈으로 읽은 이민진의 『American Hagwon』

이민진 작가의 새 소설 『American Hagwon』은 교육에 모든 것을 건 한 한국 가족이 서울에서 시드니, 그리고 캘리포니아 오렌지카운티로 옮겨 가는 이야기입니다. 이 글은 소설과 작가의 최근 인터뷰를 인적자원개발(HRD)의 관점에서 읽습니다.

이민진 작가는 학원을 “정규 학교 밖에서 돈을 내고 무언가를 배우는 모든 곳”이라고 설명하며, 일하는 부모에게 학원은 일종의 돌봄이자 숙제를 대신 맡기는 곳이라고 말합니다. 한국에서는 명문 학교 입학이 실력의 증거로 여겨지지만, 그 실력의 상당 부분은 학교 밖에서 사들인 것입니다. 역설처럼 들리지만 현실입니다. 미국의 한인 사회에서는 태권도 도장이 배움터이자 방과 후 돌봄의 역할을 함께 맡기도 합니다.

조기유학생, 이른바 ‘파라슈트 키즈’는 미성숙해서가 아니라, 진로 선택을 부모와 이민 사회에 맡겨 온 경우가 많습니다. 대학까지는 길이 분명해서 버틸 수 있지만, 진짜 직업 세계에 들어서면 스스로 길을 찾고 새로운 정체성을 세워야 하는 어려움을 겪습니다.

AI가 생각까지 대신해 주는 시대일수록, 주어진 정체성과 스스로 얻어 가는 정체성은 더 자주 부딪힙니다. 민족 정체성과 직업 정체성이라는 이중의 짐을 진 디아스포라에게는 더 큰 도전입니다. 한인 학자와 전문가들이 다음 세대의 건강한 정체성 형성에 더 많은 관심을 기울여야 할 때입니다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This article examines Jo Jung-Rae’s life and major works as a literary lens for understanding Korea’s twentieth-century tragedy, focusing especially on Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, and Han River. Across these monumental novels, Jo transforms colonial dispossession, ideological division, war, poverty, authoritarianism, industrialization, and democratization from abstract historical events into the lived experiences of ordinary people, families, and communities. The article argues that his enduring importance lies in showing how Korea’s extraordinary national transformation emerged from accumulated suffering, unresolved memory, and persistent human resilience, making his fiction essential for understanding both Korea’s tragedy and its remarkable recovery.

Keywords: Jo Jung-Rae; Korean modern history; The Taebaek Mountain Range; national tragedy; historical memory

1. Introduction

The story of Park Hon-yong (박헌영) provides a striking entrance into the tragedy of modern Korea. A leading communist activist during the Japanese colonial period, Park emerged after liberation in 1945 as one of the most influential figures of the Korean left, eventually leading the South Korean Workers’ Party and later serving as vice premier and foreign minister in the newly established North Korean government. Yet the political movement that promised liberation, equality, and national transformation ended disastrously for many of its own leaders: after the Korean War, Park and numerous associates from the South Korean Workers’ Party faction were accused of espionage, conspiracy, and responsibility for political and military failures, and many were executed or purged. Park himself, once standing near the center of revolutionary power, ultimately disappeared through the very political system that he had helped build. (Suh, 1967; Cumings, 2002).

Their fate illustrates something larger than the rise and fall of one political faction. Korea emerged from thirty-five years of Japanese colonial rule in 1945 expecting liberation, but liberation almost immediately became entangled with occupation zones, competing political ideologies, social grievances, land disputes, Cold War rivalry, and increasingly violent struggles over what kind of nation Korea should become. People who had once shared opposition to colonial domination divided into left and right, while families, villages, intellectuals, activists, and political leaders were increasingly forced to choose sides. By the time the Korean War erupted in 1950, ideological disagreement had become national division and mass violence; even afterward, victory did not necessarily bring security to those who had committed themselves to either revolutionary or nationalist causes. The destruction of Park Hun-Yong and his political associates therefore symbolizes a deeper Korean tragedy: people sought national liberation but encountered division, pursued political conviction but were consumed by ideological conflict, and sometimes became victims of the movements they had chosen to serve. (Cumings, 2002, 2005).

It is within this historical landscape that the literary achievement of Jo Jung-Rae (조정래) becomes particularly important. Historical records can identify political leaders, battles, treaties, purges, economic indicators, and institutional changes, but they cannot by themselves fully communicate what such transformations meant for ordinary people who had to live through them. Through monumental novels such as Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, and Han River, Jo places farmers, workers, families, intellectuals, collaborators, resistance fighters, leftists, rightists, migrants, and survivors inside the enormous forces transforming twentieth-century Korea. Particularly in The Taebaek Mountain Range, ideological conflict appears not simply as an abstract competition between communism and anti-communism, but as a human struggle shaped by poverty, inequality, land ownership, colonial legacies, local loyalties, resentment, fear, ambition, and survival. Jo thus asks the question that conventional political history can easily overlook: What happens to ordinary human beings when history forces them into extraordinary choices?

This article examines Jo Jung-Rae’s profile, major works, and enduring significance as a literary interpreter of Korea’s modern tragedy. It argues that his writings should be understood as an interconnected account of three great transformations: the loss of the nation under colonialism, the division of the nation through ideological conflict and war, and the reconstruction of the nation through industrialization and democratization. Reading Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, and Han River together reveals that Korea’s remarkable contemporary achievements cannot be separated from the suffering, displacement, sacrifice, and unresolved memories accumulated across generations. Jo Jung-Rae matters, therefore, because he does more than describe what Korea experienced: he preserves how history felt to those who had to endure it.

2. Contextual Overview: Sources of Korea’s Tragedy

Korea’s modern tragedy did not originate from one event alone. It developed cumulatively through colonial domination, liberation without national unity, ideological confrontation, war, authoritarian development, and the social costs of rapid modernization. These historical forces overlapped rather than replacing one another, leaving unresolved questions of identity, justice, legitimacy, memory, and national belonging. Jo Jung-Rae’s major novels are important because they portray these experiences as interconnected human realities rather than isolated historical episodes.

Figure 1 presents the major phases of Korea’s twentieth-century tragedy and transformation as a historical progression from Japanese colonial rule to contemporary democratic and global Korea. It begins with colonial rule from 1910 to 1945, emphasizing loss of sovereignty, exploitation, and resistance; moves to liberation and division from 1945 to 1950, marked by freedom without unity and intensifying ideological conflict; and then highlights the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 as a period of national catastrophe, mass suffering, and permanent division. The figure next shows industrialization and development from 1953 to 1987, characterized by reconstruction, rapid economic growth, and social change, followed by democratization and global integration from 1987 to the present. Taken together, the sequence portrays Korea’s modern history not simply as a story of tragedy, but as a continuing journey of resilience, reconstruction, and transformation.

Figure 1. Korea’s Twentieth-Century Journey: From Colonial Tragedy to Resilience and Transformation

Source: Author’s Own Synthesis

2.1. Colonial Rule: Loss of Sovereignty and Historical Wounds

The first major source of Korea’s modern tragedy was the loss of sovereignty under Japanese colonial rule from 1910 to 1945, which reshaped political authority, land ownership, education, language, economic structures, and national identity while prompting resistance, migration, accommodation, and collaboration. These different experiences created social fragmentation and unresolved tensions over collaborators, land, inequality, political legitimacy, and the future direction of the nation that persisted after liberation. Jo Jung-Rae’s Arirang captures these complexities through the lives of ordinary people confronting displacement, exploitation, resistance, and survival, showing that colonialism’s deepest legacy was not only the loss of sovereignty but also the enduring wounds it left within Korean society. (Eckert et al., 1990; Shin & Robinson, 1999).

2.2. Liberation and Division: From Freedom to Ideological Conflict

The second major source of Korea’s modern tragedy was the paradox of liberation in 1945, when the end of Japanese colonial rule was quickly followed by Soviet and American occupation zones and competing visions for Korea’s political, economic, and social future. Cold War rivalry intensified disagreements over land reform, private property, political authority, social equality, and foreign alignment, while unresolved colonial-era grievances helped transform ideological differences into hostility, repression, and violence. Jo Jung-Rae’s The Taebaek Mountain Range captures this tragedy by showing how ideological conflict penetrated villages, families, friendships, and everyday life, making Korea’s division not only geographic but also a profound division among Koreans themselves. (Cumings, 2002; Robinson, 2007).

2.3. War, Development, and Unresolved Memory

The Korean War transformed ideological division into national catastrophe, devastating cities and villages, causing enormous civilian and military casualties, displacing populations, separating families, and leaving the peninsula divided after the 1953 armistice. South Korea’s subsequent industrialization, urbanization, educational expansion, and economic growth produced remarkable national transformation but also substantial human costs through rural migration, difficult labor conditions, authoritarian rule, political repression, and family disruption. Jo Jung-Rae’s Han River captures this tension between achievement and sacrifice, while read together, Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, and Han River reveal a historical progression in which colonial dispossession created wounds, liberation deepened division, war institutionalized conflict, and development transformed the nation without completely erasing its unresolved memories. (Cumings, 2005; Oberdorfer & Carlin, 2014; Robinson, 2007).

3. Life Profile of Jo Jung-Rae

Born in 1943 during the final years of Japanese colonial rule, Jo Jung-Rae came of age through liberation, division, war, poverty, authoritarianism, and rapid industrialization, experiences that later shaped his ambitious historical fiction centered on ordinary people, regional realities, social structures, and the enduring effects of national trauma, making him not only a major novelist but also an important interpreter of Korea’s collective memory.

3.1. Formative Years: Growing Up in a Divided and Changing Korea

Jo Jung-Rae was born in 1943 in South Jeolla Province, a region that later became especially important in his literary imagination. His childhood unfolded during one of the most unstable periods in Korean history: Japanese colonial rule ended when he was still very young, national division followed almost immediately, and the Korean War devastated the peninsula during his early years. He later studied Korean literature at Dongguk University, where his engagement with language, history, and literature deepened. These formative experiences exposed him not only to national-level conflict but also to the regional, familial, and social consequences of historical change.

This background helps explain why ordinary people occupy such a central place in his novels. Jo repeatedly portrays farmers, laborers, local elites, migrants, women, intellectuals, political activists, and families whose lives are altered by forces beyond their control. His attention to the Honam region, rural inequality, ideological conflict, and social hierarchy suggests an enduring concern with how history is experienced from below. His early life thus provided both the emotional and historical foundation for a literary project centered on the question: How do ordinary people survive when national history enters directly into their homes, communities, and relationships?

3.2. Literary Career: From Short Fiction to Monumental Historical Novels

Jo Jung-Rae began his formal literary career around 1970 and gradually developed from shorter works into large-scale historical fiction. His career reached a defining stage through three monumental novel cycles: The Taebaek Mountain Range, Arirang, and Han River. Together, these works span much of twentieth-century Korean history, from Japanese colonial rule through liberation and war to industrialization and democratization. Their scale is itself significant, because Jo appears to have understood Korea’s modern experience as too complex to be captured through isolated episodes or individual biographies alone.

His method combines extensive historical research with fictional reconstruction. Rather than writing conventional political history, he creates multiple characters representing different classes, ideologies, occupations, regions, and moral choices. This allows readers to see the same historical event from conflicting perspectives and helps explain why people could act very differently under similar conditions. Jo’s literary career therefore developed around a distinctive mission: to transform national history into lived human experience, making historical complexity accessible without reducing it to one ideology, one leader, or one interpretation.

3.3. Jo Jung-Rae as a Keeper of Historical Memory

In his later career, Jo Jung-Rae came to represent more than literary achievement alone. His major works became part of Korea’s broader cultural conversation about colonial memory, ideological division, regional conflict, modernization, inequality, and national identity. Because many of these topics remained politically sensitive for decades, his novels helped reopen questions that had often been simplified, suppressed, or framed primarily through official ideological narratives. By recovering multiple voices and experiences, he contributed to a more layered understanding of how national tragedy affected different groups of Koreans. (Shin, 2006).

His enduring importance therefore lies in the role of historical memory keeper. Jo does not present Korea merely as a victim of foreign powers or as a success story of economic development; he shows a nation repeatedly forced to confront internal division, moral ambiguity, sacrifice, and survival. His own life, spanning colonial rule, war, authoritarianism, democratization, and globalized Korea, mirrors the long historical arc explored in his fiction. Jo Jung-Rae’s profile is therefore inseparable from his larger contribution: he turned one generation’s lived memories into a literary archive for later generations trying to understand Korea’s tragedy and transformation.

4. Major Works and Their Historical Significance

Jo Jung-Rae’s major achievement lies in transforming Korea’s twentieth-century history into a vast literary narrative centered on ordinary people. His three monumental works—Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, and Han River—can be read together as a historical sequence moving from colonial dispossession, to ideological division and war, and finally to reconstruction, industrialization, and democratization. Each work addresses a different stage of Korea’s transformation, but all three share a common concern: how large political and economic forces reshape individual lives, family relationships, social identities, and moral choices. Together, they form one of the most ambitious literary interpretations of modern Korean history.

Table 1. Jo Jung-Rae’s Major Novels and the Historical Experiences They Portray

Source: Author’s Own Synthesis

Table 1 summarizes how Jo Jung-Rae’s major novels portray distinct but interconnected stages of Korea’s modern historical experience. Arirang focuses on Japanese colonial rule from 1910 to 1945 and addresses loss of sovereignty, dispossession, resistance, collaboration, and the everyday struggles of ordinary Koreans under colonialism. The Taebaek Mountain Range centers on liberation, division, and the Korean War era from 1945 to 1953, highlighting ideological conflict, land reform, fractured families and communities, and the difficult search for national identity. Han River portrays the postwar period of industrialization and democratization from 1953 to 1987, emphasizing poverty, rapid economic growth, urbanization, authoritarianism, social movements, and the struggle for democracy. Together, the three novels form a literary sequence showing how Korea moved from colonial dispossession through ideological division toward reconstruction and national transformation.

4.1. Arirang: Colonial Dispossession, Migration, and Resistance

Arirang addresses the colonial period and the profound disruption created by the loss of Korean sovereignty under Japanese rule. Through a broad range of characters and locations, the novel portrays land loss, economic exploitation, migration, cultural pressure, political resistance, collaboration, and the struggle to preserve identity. Koreans are shown moving across the peninsula and into Manchuria, China, Japan, and other regions, revealing that colonialism was not only a political system imposed from above but also a force that transformed where people lived, how they worked, and how families survived.

The importance of Arirang lies in its capacity to humanize colonial history. Rather than reducing the era to a conflict between occupiers and resistance leaders, Jo shows the many difficult choices ordinary people faced under conditions of limited freedom. Some resisted openly, some adapted, some collaborated, and many simply struggled to endure. The novel therefore reveals the first layer of Korea’s modern tragedy: the loss of sovereignty created not only national humiliation but also displacement, social fragmentation, and unresolved questions of loyalty, survival, and historical responsibility. (Jo, 1995).

4.2. The Taebaek Mountain Range: Division, Ideology, and Civil Conflict

The Taebaek Mountain Range is perhaps Jo Jung-Rae’s most important work for understanding the tragedy of Korea’s ideological division. Set around the period of liberation and the Korean War, the novel portrays conflict among leftists, rightists, landowners, peasants, intellectuals, officials, families, and local communities. Ideology is never presented as purely abstract; it is linked to land inequality, colonial legacies, class resentment, political repression, regional tensions, and deeply personal experiences of injustice. As a result, the novel shows how national division became embedded in everyday relationships.

Its greatest contribution is to reveal the human cost of forcing people into rigid political categories. Friends could become enemies, families could divide, and individuals could be punished not only for what they did but also for where they lived, whom they knew, or what others believed about them. The fate of figures such as Park Hon-yong and his followers provides a historical parallel to this larger pattern: ideological movements that promised liberation could also destroy their own participants. The Taebaek Mountain Range therefore captures the central paradox of Korea’s modern tragedy: liberation from colonial rule did not immediately produce unity, but instead opened the way to division, violence, and enduring mistrust among Koreans themselves. (Jo, 1989).

4.3. Han River: Industrialization, Sacrifice, and National Transformation

Han River moves the historical narrative into the postwar era, when South Korea shifted from poverty and destruction toward industrialization, urbanization, and economic modernization. Jo portrays rural migrants, workers, entrepreneurs, students, families, and political actors whose lives are transformed by rapid development. The novel highlights the remarkable achievements of modernization while also exposing its costs: difficult labor conditions, authoritarian politics, family separation, social inequality, intense competition, and the psychological pressures of adapting to a rapidly changing society.

What makes Han River especially significant is its refusal to treat economic growth as a purely triumphant story. Korea’s transformation was real and extraordinary, but Jo reminds readers that national progress was built through individual sacrifice and uneven opportunity. In this sense, Han River completes the trajectory begun in Arirang and continued in The Taebaek Mountain Range: Korea moved from colonial dispossession, through ideological division, toward national reconstruction, but each stage carried forward memories and wounds from the previous one. Jo Jung-Rae’s trilogy therefore shows that Korea’s modern success is most fully understood when achievement and suffering are examined together. (Jo, 2002).

5. From National Tragedy to Global Transformation: A 2×2 Interpretive Framework

Jo Jung-Rae’s three historical epics trace Korea’s journey from colonial dispossession through ideological division to industrialization, while Jungle Manri extends this literary vision into globalization, regional competition, and Korea’s changing relationship with China and the wider world, showing that the enduring themes of survival, power, adaptation, and human dignity continue within a new global and institutional setting. (Jo, 2013).

Table 2

The Historical and Spatial Evolution of Korean’s Modern Journney

Source: Author’s Own Synthesis

5.1. Two Dimensions: Historical Condition and Spatial Scope

The framework organizes the four works along two dimensions. The first distinguishes coercion and conflict from modernization and competition, while the second distinguishes primarily national settings from transnational settings. This produces four interpretive positions: The Taebaek Mountain Range represents national conflict; Arirang depicts coercion that drives migration and resistance across borders; Han River portrays national modernization; and Jungle Manri examines transnational modernization and economic competition. The framework therefore shows continuity in Jo’s central concern with ordinary people while clarifying how the scale and form of historical pressure change over time.

5.2. From Memory to Contemporary Responsibility

Seen through this framework, Jo’s literary project moves from remembering historical trauma toward interpreting the moral consequences of contemporary transformation. The earlier works ask how people survive colonialism, division, war, and authoritarian development, whereas Jungle Manri asks how individuals and societies navigate globalization, economic ambition, cultural difference, and competitive interdependence. The shift from national tragedy to global transformation strengthens the article’s central argument: historical memory remains valuable not because Korea is trapped in the past, but because past experiences provide a human and ethical lens for understanding new forms of power and change.

5.3. Literature, Memory, and Korea’s Future

Literature can complement formal historical accounts by transforming political conflict and social transformation into human experience, while also functioning as a form of reflection and political commentary (Hong, 2024). Jo’s literary preservation of division, conflict, and collective memory also suggests that understanding unresolved history remains important for approaching Korea’s future, including the continuing challenge of national reconciliation and unification (Hong, 2025).

6. Conclusion

Jo Jung-Rae’s major novels trace Korea’s journey from colonial dispossession and national division to industrialization, globalization, and new forms of social competition. The 2×2 framework developed in Section 5 shows how Arirang, The Taebaek Mountain Range, Han River, and Jungle Manri connect changing historical conditions with national and transnational settings. Taken together, these works suggest that Jo sees Korean history not as a finished national tragedy, but as an ongoing process in which people and society continue to face violence, modernization, global competition, and moral responsibility. His greatest achievement lies in connecting collective memory to Korea’s future while affirming the enduring importance of human dignity, solidarity, and historical responsibility.

References

Cumings, B. (2002). The origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the emergence of separate regimes, 1945–1947.Yuksabipyungsa. (Original work published 1981)

Cumings, B. (2005). Korea’s place in the sun: A modern history (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton.

Eckert, C. J., Lee, K.-B., Lew, Y. I., Robinson, M., & Wagner, E. W. (1990). Korea old and new: A history. Ilchokak.

Hong, P. (2024). Navigating the fine line: The role of literature as reflection and political commentary. KAUPA Letters, 12(2), 43–48. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/kaupa/vol12/iss2/9/

Hong, P. (2025). Historical imperative: A key to Korean unification. KAUPA Letters, 12(4), 80–88. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/kaupa/vol12/iss4/4/

Jo, J.-R. (1989). Taebaek sanmaek [The Taebaek Mountains] (Vols. 1–10). Hangilsa.

Jo, J.-R. (1995). Arirang [Arirang] (Vols. 1–12). Haenaem.

Jo, J.-R. (2002). Hangang [The Han River] (Vols. 1–10). Haenaem.

Jo, J.-R. (2013). Jeonggeul manri [Jungle Manri] (Vols. 1–3). Haenaem.

Oberdorfer, D., & Carlin, R. (2014). The two Koreas: A contemporary history (3rd ed.). Basic Books.

Robinson, M. E. (2007). Korea’s twentieth-century odyssey: A short history. University of Hawai’i Press.

Shin, G.-W. (2006). Ethnic nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, politics, and legacy. Stanford University Press.

Shin, G.-W., & Robinson, M. E. (Eds.). (1999). Colonial modernity in Korea. Harvard University Asia Center.

Suh, D.-S. (1967). The Korean communist movement, 1918–1948. Princeton University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul C. Hong (Editor-in-Chief) - Distinguished University Professor, University of Toledo

Paul C. Hong is a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Toledo whose academic background integrates economics, manufacturing management, engineering, and global supply chain strategy. He earned a B.A. in Economics from Yonsei University, an M.A. in Economics from Bowling Green State University, and a Ph.D. in Manufacturing Management and Engineering from the University of Toledo. His research focuses on global supply chain management, strategic benchmarking, manufacturing competitiveness, resilience, industrial policy, and geo-economics, with particular interest in how trade policy, technological change, economic security, and geopolitical competition reshape international production networks and national competitiveness. His current work increasingly examines the intersection of global supply chains, strategic industries, AI-enabled transformation, and geo-economic relations among major economies, emphasizing how firms and nations can balance efficiency, resilience, strategic autonomy, and international cooperation in an increasingly complex global environment.

Suggested Citation

Hong, P. C. (2026, October 6). Jo Jung-Rae: The novelist who turned Korea’s twentieth-century tragedy into human memory. K-GSP Forum, pp. 1–11.

Original Article:

10 6 26 Jo Jung Rae Paulhong

2.76MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

한국어 요약

조정래: 한국의 20세기 비극을 인간의 기억으로 되살린 소설가

조정래는 한국 현대사의 비극을 단순한 정치적 사건의 연속으로 기록한 것이 아니라, 그 시대를 살아간 평범한 사람들의 고통과 선택, 생존의 경험으로 되살린 대표적 작가이다. 이 글은 그의 주요 작품인 『아리랑』, 『태백산맥』, 『한강』을 중심으로 식민지 지배, 해방과 분단, 한국전쟁, 권위주의, 산업화와 민주화가 어떻게 개인과 가족, 공동체의 삶 속에 스며들었는지를 살펴본다. 특히 조정래의 문학은 한국의 놀라운 발전이 축적된 희생과 상처, 미해결된 기억과 분리될 수 없음을 보여 주며, 역사적 사실을 인간의 체험으로 전환한다는 점에서 중요한 의미를 갖는다.

한국의 20세기 비극은 하나의 사건에서 비롯된 것이 아니라 일제 식민지 지배, 1945년 해방 이후의 분단, 좌우 이념 대립, 한국전쟁, 권위주의적 발전, 급속한 산업화가 누적되면서 형성되었다. 『아리랑』은 식민지 시기의 국권 상실, 토지와 삶의 기반의 상실, 이주, 저항과 협력, 생존의 문제를 다루며, 『태백산맥』은 해방 후 이념 대립이 마을과 가족, 친구 관계까지 파괴하는 과정을 보여 준다. 『한강』은 전쟁 이후 빈곤에서 산업국가로 성장하는 과정에서 나타난 도시화, 노동, 권위주의, 가족의 희생과 민주화의 긴장을 묘사한다. 세 작품을 함께 읽으면 식민지의 상처가 분단으로, 분단이 전쟁으로, 전쟁 이후의 상처가 산업화와 사회 변화 속에서도 계속 이어졌다는 역사적 연속성이 드러난다.

조정래 자신의 삶 또한 이러한 한국 현대사의 흐름과 밀접하게 겹쳐 있다. 그는 1943년에 태어나 식민지 말기, 해방, 분단, 한국전쟁, 전후 빈곤, 권위주의와 고도성장을 직접 경험한 세대에 속하며, 이러한 역사적 경험은 그의 문학적 문제의식의 토대가 되었다. 그의 소설은 다양한 계층, 지역, 이념, 직업과 도덕적 선택을 지닌 인물들을 통해 동일한 역사적 사건이 사람들에게 얼마나 다르게 경험될 수 있는지를 보여 준다. 이 때문에 조정래는 단순한 소설가를 넘어 한 세대의 기억을 후대에 전달하는 ‘역사적 기억의 보존자’로 이해할 수 있다.

이 글의 핵심 메시지는 문학이 역사책이나 정치적 기록이 충분히 전달하기 어려운 인간의 내면, 두려움, 희생, 선택과 관계의 파괴를 보여 줄 수 있다는 데 있다. 조정래의 소설은 한국의 역사를 피해와 성공 중 하나로 단순화하지 않고, 비극과 성취, 분열과 재건, 희생과 발전을 함께 바라보게 한다. 또한 문학적 기억은 과거를 회상하는 데 그치지 않고 오늘의 한국이 분단과 화해, 세계화와 경쟁, 인간적 책임을 어떻게 이해할 것인가에 중요한 시사점을 제공한다. 결국 조정래의 가장 큰 공헌은 한국의 집단적 기억을 미래와 연결하면서 인간의 존엄성, 연대, 그리고 역사적 성찰의 중요성을 일깨운 데 있다.

Paul C. Hong은 University of Toledo의 Distinguished University Professor로서 글로벌 공급망, 리더십, 전략, 기술과 제도적 신뢰를 연구하며, 복잡성과 변화의 시대에 개인과 조직이 어떻게 대응하고 변혁하는지를 폭넓게 탐구해 왔고, 문학·역사·경영을 연결하는 학제적 관점에서 사회와 글로벌 변화에 관한 글을 지속적으로 발표하고 있다.

Cover image: A Painted House by John Grisham. Image reproduced for purposes of review and commentary.

For several years, I had wanted to visit Lepanto, Arkansas, the filming location for A Painted House, based on John Grisham’s 2001 novel. Two years after the novel’s publication, it was adapted into a Hallmark Hall of Fame television movie, starring Logan Lerman and Scott Glenn in the two main roles. A former attorney and politician, Grisham is best known for his legal thrillers, but A Painted House is quite different from his usual work. Although the novel contains elements of suspense and mystery, it can also be read as a historical novel, a coming-of-age novel, or a local-color novel. I found the novel interesting and placed Lepanto near the top of my list of places to visit.

In A Painted House, Grisham draws heavily on his childhood memories of rural Arkansas. Born in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in 1955, he knew the region well. Jonesboro is only about forty-two miles northwest of Lepanto. Lepanto is a small town in Poinsett County, located in a flat agricultural area. Although Jonesboro itself is somewhat hilly, it is surrounded by extensive farmland. During Grisham’s early childhood, his parents worked on a cotton farm in Black Oak, a town in Craighead County. When he was four years old, his family moved to Parkin, Arkansas. After living there for three years, they moved to Southaven, Mississippi. Grisham nevertheless spent many of his childhood summers at his grandparents’ farm in Black Oak.

A Painted House begins with the following paragraph:

The hill people and the Mexicans arrived on the same day. It was a Wednesday, early in September 1952. The Cardinals were five games behind the Dodgers with three weeks to go, and the season looked hopeless. The cotton, however, was waist-high to my father, over my head, and he and my grandfather could be heard before supper whispering words that were seldom heard. It could be a “good crop.”

The opening establishes three of the novel’s central elements: the Arkansas landscape, the cotton harvest, and the narrator’s passionate attachment to the St. Louis Cardinals. By placing the arrival of the hill people and Mexicans alongside the Cardinals’ pennant race, Grisham introduces the regional and cultural tensions that shape the story.

As a regional or local-color novel, A Painted House is distinctly set in the Arkansas Delta. Grisham portrays the lifestyle of its residents, including local gossip and church life, the use of hired hands from the Ozarks and Mexico to work the cotton fields, and the residents’ emotional attachment to professional baseball. The novel also reveals tensions between the flatlanders of northeastern Arkansas and the “hill people” from the Ozarks, as well as between residents and Mexican workers. The Spruills, for example, are hired cotton pickers from Eureka Springs in northwestern Arkansas. Thus, alongside its suspenseful plot and elements of a historical bildungsroman, the novel reveals aspects of life, culture, and regional identity that are distinctive to this part of Arkansas.

Lepanto is only about fourteen miles west of Interstate Highway 55, which I take each year on my way to and from Mississippi for an annual conference. However, it was not until March 2026 that I finally took the time to visit Lepanto on my return trip to St. Louis. Rather than making the entire drive in one day, I stayed overnight in Grenada, Mississippi, and left early the next morning for Lepanto. From I-55, I took I-555 west and then turned north onto AR-135. The drive from I-55 to Lepanto took less than fifteen minutes.

Lepanto, Arkansas, is located about forty-two miles northwest of Memphis, Tennessee. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

Northeastern Arkansas is characterized by intensive, large-scale row-crop agriculture, made possible by the region’s flat terrain and fertile soils of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. Cotton and rice are especially important crops, while soybeans and corn are also widely cultivated. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

A road sign along I-555 points to the exit for Lepanto.

The sign indicates that Lepanto is eleven miles ahead along this country road.

As is often the case along rural roads in Arkansas, there was little traffic on AR-135. During the eleven-mile stretch, I encountered only two or three vehicles. For me, one of the best things about the United States is the spaciousness and leisureliness represented by this road. This kind of scenery allows me to slow down, relax, and appreciate the simple peace of rural life.

On the way to Lepanto, a farmhouse stands beside structures with pointed roofs that appear to be silos. This is typical scenery on the rural roads of the Midwest and South.

The road sign shows that I have arrived in Lepanto, a city of 1,732 people. Because of my GPS’s incorrect directions, I drove around the city for about fifteen minutes looking for the setting of A Painted House. Then, by accident, I found it near the water tank visible in the foreground of this photo.

This is the house I was looking for. In Grisham’s novel, the Chandler family’s dilapidated farmhouse needs painting. The house is eventually painted white, and its fresh coat of paint becomes a visible sign of the family’s hope for a more respectable life. As a coming-of-age novel, however, A Painted House suggests that some things cannot simply be covered over with a fresh coat of paint. Luke Chandler’s childhood experiences with violence, racial tensions, family conflict, and adult sexuality expose him to the darker realities of the world around him, gradually replacing childhood innocence with experience. In a way, this transformation recalls William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and of Experience: Shewing the Two Contrary States of the Human Soul (1794), in which innocence gives way to a more complicated understanding of the human condition.

The sign indicates that this is the actual house used in the filming of A Painted House.

The side of the mailbox bears the main character’s family name, “Chandlers,” and the year in which the story is set, 1952.

A traditional plough adorns the bottom of the mailbox post.

Different views of the painted house.

After touring the filming location of A Painted House in Lepanto, I took State Highway 14 east to Interstate 55 on my way home. The highway was flanked by flat agricultural land, a typical landscape in northeastern Arkansas. Driving along an American country road like this helps restore my soul.

About eight miles east of Lepanto, I turned right onto Highway 297, which soon led to Dyess, the boyhood home of singer-songwriter Johnny Cash (1932–2003). Born to poor cotton farmers in Kingsland, Arkansas, Cash moved with his family to Dyess when he was a young child and spent much of his childhood there.

Dyess is a typical rural Southern town, quiet and peaceful. During my visit, I saw no residents outside their homes.

About the Author

Professor of English and Creative Writing and Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and Theology, Missouri Baptist University

John J. Han, PhD, is the author, editor, co-editor, or translator of 38 books published by Rodopi, Peter Lang, McFarland, Bloomsbury Academic, and other presses. He has published hundreds of scholarly articles and more than 3,000 poems, mostly haiku, in journals and anthologies around the world. His forthcoming book, Echoes from the Hills: Critical Essays on Ozarks Literature, co-edited with C. Clark Triplett, will be published by the University of Arkansas Press. He is in his 28th year as a full-time faculty member at Missouri Baptist University, where he has taught since 1999. He has also taught at Kansas State University, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Nebraska Wesleyan University, and Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as a visiting scholar at Georgia College & State University and the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Who Pays for the AI Revolution?

Electricity, Data Centers, and the New Social Contract

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is often described as a revolution in algorithms, data, and computing. Yet behind every AI service lies an enormous physical infrastructure of data centers, servers, cooling systems, power grids, substations, and power plants. As generative AI and large-scale AI models continue to expand, data-center electricity demand is rising rapidly, raising a new social question: Who should pay for the infrastructure that makes the AI revolution possible?

In the United States, data centers already account for a significant share of electricity consumption, and that share is expected to increase substantially in the coming years. In Ireland, data centers’ share of metered electricity consumption increased from 5% in 2015 to 23% in 2025. These developments demonstrate that the growth of the AI industry can affect not only corporate investment and technological innovation but also electricity grids, local communities, and ordinary consumers.

This essay examines AI data-center electricity demand not simply as an energy issue but as a matter of a new social contract. The central principle is straightforward: “Those who cause the costs should bear an appropriate share, while the value created should be shared.” Sustainable AI growth requires a new balance among corporate innovation, grid reliability, consumer costs, community benefits, and social trust.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, data centers, electricity grid, energy transition, social contract

1. The Hidden Cost of the AI Revolution: Data Centers and Electricity

AI appears to operate inside a screen as a digital technology. Yet behind every AI service are servers and GPUs, cooling systems, networks, and data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. data centers consumed approximately 176 TWh of electricity in 2023, representing about 4.4% of total U.S. electricity consumption. As AI and data-center industries continue to expand, their share of electricity demand could become substantially larger by 2030.

This transformation invites us to think of data centers as the new factories of the AI era. Factories during the Industrial Revolution required land, raw materials, labor, and energy. AI-era data centers similarly require advanced semiconductors, networks, cooling systems, and reliable electricity. When a large AI data center enters a new region, additional substations, transmission lines, and other electricity infrastructure may be required.

Ireland illustrates this transformation particularly clearly. According to Ireland’s Central Statistics Office, data centers accounted for approximately 5% of metered electricity consumption in 2015, rising to 18% in 2022, 21% in 2023, 22% in 2024, and 23% in 2025. Data centers have therefore become a significant electricity consumer within the national power system.

This development raises a fundamental question: Who should pay for the electricity and grid infrastructure required by the growth of the AI industry? The fact that data centers create substantial economic value does not automatically mean that all related costs should be borne by consumers and society. At the same time, it would not be fair to assign every grid investment to data centers. What matters is transparency about the relationship between the cause of a cost and the benefits it creates.

2. How Should the Benefits and Costs of Growth Be Shared?

AI data centers can create jobs, generate tax revenues, attract investment, and stimulate technological innovation. They can help establish new industries and strengthen regional economies. For these reasons, policies that simply restrict data-center investment could weaken national and regional competitiveness.

However, a different issue arises when a large data center sharply increases local electricity demand and requires new substations, transmission lines, or other infrastructure. If these additional costs are shifted to other electricity consumers, the economic benefits and social costs of AI development may become unevenly distributed. The imbalance becomes particularly concerning when data centers receive low electricity rates or substantial tax incentives while ordinary consumers bear part of the cost of grid expansion.

The guiding principle should therefore be: “Those who cause the costs should bear an appropriate share, while the value created should be shared.” Additional incremental infrastructure costs directly caused by a particular data center should, where appropriate, be borne by the company responsible for creating that demand. At the same time, investments in grid modernization and long-term infrastructure that benefit households, businesses, and multiple industries should be treated as shared infrastructure and financed through reasonable collective mechanisms.

Transparency is essential. Policymakers and regulators should clearly distinguish between investments required for normal grid modernization and those specifically triggered by new large-scale electricity demand. Without such distinctions, the economic success of the data-center industry could unintentionally translate into higher electricity costs for ordinary consumers.

The United States and Korea face similar choices, although under different conditions. The United States can use its large geographic area and diverse energy resources to expand data centers rapidly, but it must address regional grid costs and consumer protection. Korea has major strengths in semiconductors and information and communications technology, yet its limited land area and high concentration of economic activity create additional challenges involving data-center location and electricity supply. The key question, therefore, is not simply “Should we attract data centers?” but rather “Under what conditions should we attract them?”

3. A New AI Energy Social Contract

Addressing the energy challenges of AI will require more than simply building additional power plants. A new social contract is needed—one that connects technological innovation with social responsibility.

First is transparency. Data centers should disclose their electricity demand and the additional infrastructure costs associated with their operations. Second is cost responsibility. Companies should bear an appropriate share of the incremental costs they directly create. Third is shared infrastructure. Investments that provide long-term benefits to multiple users should be financed through reasonable collective arrangements. Fourth is community benefit. When data centers use local land, electricity, water, and infrastructure, local communities should receive meaningful benefits through employment, tax revenues, education, or other public programs. Fifth is flexibility. Some AI workloads can be shifted in time, allowing data centers to reduce or reschedule electricity consumption when the grid is under stress. Appropriate economic incentives could encourage such flexibility.

Demand flexibility could become a new energy resource in the AI era. Future electricity pricing could consider not only how much electricity is consumed, but also when, where, how much, and how flexibly it is consumed. If data centers can operate in ways that reduce pressure on the grid, businesses, consumers, and the electricity system can all benefit.

Efficiency alone, however, will not be enough. More efficient AI chips and algorithms can reduce the electricity required for an individual task, but overall electricity consumption may still increase if AI usage expands dramatically. Sustainable AI therefore requires attention not only to energy efficiency per task but also to total demand and the social value generated by that demand.

In the long term, this issue could contribute to a transition from the digital divide to an energy divide. Countries and regions with reliable and affordable electricity may gain an advantage in AI development. Future AI competitiveness will therefore depend not simply on software capabilities but on the combination of energy + computing + networks + semiconductors + governance.

Ultimately, an AI data center is more than a computer facility. It is the physical heart of the AI economy. Yet the most important infrastructure of the AI era is not the electricity grid alone. Social trust is infrastructure, too.

Conclusion: The True Cost of Intelligence

The AI revolution may appear to take place inside screens, but its foundation is profoundly physical. Data centers require electricity; electricity requires generation and transmission infrastructure; and that infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital and social resources. We must therefore ask not only, “How much AI should we build?” but also, “Who should pay for the energy and infrastructure that make AI possible?”

A good social contract does not prevent innovation. Instead, it distributes the benefits and costs of innovation more fairly. When data centers require additional grid investment, those costs should be transparently calculated and appropriately allocated. At the same time, infrastructure that benefits society as a whole should be reasonably shared.

Ultimately, sustainable AI development cannot be achieved simply by building more servers or more powerful chips. It requires reliable energy, efficient power grids, responsible businesses, fair policies, meaningful community benefits, and public trust.

The future of AI will therefore depend not only on how much computing power we can build, but also on how wisely we connect technology with energy, infrastructure, and society. The true cost of the AI revolution is not reflected in electricity bills alone. It is reflected in the question of what kind of society we choose to build.

4. References

Central Statistics Office. (2024, July 23). Data centres metered electricity consumption 2023. Government of Ireland.

Central Statistics Office. (2026). Data centres metered electricity consumption 2025. Government of Ireland.

Fearon, S. (2026). The cost of data centres: Modelling the household electricity costs of Ireland’s data centre sector. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20487363

LeBel, M. (2026, April 2). Making ratepayer protection a reality—Part 1: How do data centers impact residential rates? Regulatory Assistance Project.

Regulatory Assistance Project. (2026a). Data centers and the case for coordinated oversight.

Regulatory Assistance Project. (2026b). Making electricity grids cheaper: RAP’s 10 priority actions.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2024, December 20). DOE releases new report evaluating increase in electricity demand from data centers.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2025). United States data center energy usage report: 2025 update. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

5. About the Author

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Full list of his K-GSP columns:

https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_young_choi

Full list of his Books at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0DMZ5S6R7/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=381619c7-0df9-44f4-b943-275bf03d5723&ccs_id=3f36c38c-ba92-4dcf-a124-af49ce39a878

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

6. Suggested Citation

Choi, Y. B. (2026). Who pays for the AI revolution? Electricity, data centers, and the new social contract. K-GSP Forum.

한글요약

인공지능은 디지털 기술처럼 보이지만 그 기반에는 데이터센터, 서버, 냉각시설, 전력망과 같은 거대한 물리적 인프라가 존재한다. AI와 데이터센터의 급속한 성장은 전력수요를 증가시키고 있으며, 미국과 아일랜드의 사례는 이러한 변화가 이미 현실이 되고 있음을 보여준다. 특히 아일랜드에서 데이터센터의 전력소비 비중은 2015년 5%에서 2025년 23%까지 증가했다. 이러한 변화는 AI 산업의 성장을 위해 필요한 전력망 비용을 누가 부담해야 하는가라는 새로운 사회적 질문을 제기한다.

이 글은 “원인을 만든 만큼 부담하고, 창출한 가치는 함께 나눈다”는 원칙을 제안한다. 특정 데이터센터가 직접 유발한 추가적인 인프라 비용은 가능한 한 해당 기업이 부담하되, 여러 산업과 시민이 함께 이용하는 공동 인프라 비용은 사회가 합리적으로 분담해야 한다. 또한 데이터센터의 전력사용 유연성을 활용하고 지역사회가 일자리와 세수, 교육 등의 혜택을 공유하도록 해야 한다. 궁극적으로 AI의 지속가능한 발전은 더 많은 컴퓨팅 능력뿐만 아니라 에너지, 인프라, 공정성, 지역사회, 그리고 사회적 신뢰를 함께 설계하는 데 달려 있다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Executive Summary

A working adult student recently asked me whether a doctorate makes sense later in life, and which kind to pursue. Drawing on my own zigzag protean career, from engineer to consultant to professor to returnee, this article answers that question. My doctorate did not begin with a career plan. It began with a question I could not stop asking. I outline realistic doctoral options for working adults and argue that “life inquiry” should come before career strategy.

Keywords: doctoral education, non-traditional students, protean career, life inquiry, human resource development

1. A Question From a Working Adult

The message came from a master of orgnaizaitonal leadership student who, like many in my classes, works full time and studies online. The question was honest and practical. Is a doctorate worth it at this stage of life? Should it be a PhD or a professional doctorate such as an EdD? Can it be done online while keeping a job and caring for a family? And what career would it lead to afterward?

Behind these questions sat real considerations: time, money, family obligations, and a quiet worry about starting something so demanding “too late.” These are the right things to weigh. But I noticed that every question pointed toward an outcome, and none asked what the doctorate would be for.

That is where my answer begins. My own path to a doctorate was neither early nor straight. It was a zigzag, and what kept me moving was not a career plan but a question. I want to share that story, offer some practical options, and suggest an order of priorities that I wish someone had given me.

2. A Zigzag Career Driven by Questions

Career scholars describe a “protean” career as one directed by the person’s own values rather than by an organization’s ladder (Hall, 2004). Looking back, mine fits that description, though I did not have the word at the time (Choi, 2025).

2.1 From Engineer to Consultant

I started as a mechanical engineer who wanted to build powerful machines. A personal loss turned my attention from power to safety, and after graduate study in control systems, I joined BOSCH Korea as an R&D engineer working on anti-lock braking systems. For the first time, my work felt aligned with protecting lives.

Then the questions changed. I learned that safety technologies could be adapted for military use, and I watched a global production project I managed move overseas in a cost-driven realignment. More than 60 colleagues lost their jobs. I realized that I understood machines far better than I understood organizations.

That gap led me to MBA study at the KDI School of Public Policy and Management in Korea and at HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management in Germany. In Germany, I encountered a stakeholder-centered model of management that treated people as more than costs. I then worked as a business consultant for companies large and small in Germany and Korea. Each move followed a new question, not a promotion path.

2.2 “Why Do People Work Like That?”

Consulting showed me a recurring pattern. Projects failed less because of markets than because of leadership. Some leaders used people to extract value instead of developing them. Two questions began to follow me home: Why do people work like that? And how do we get people to work by themselves?

Those questions would not leave me, so in 2007, at an age when many people settle into their careers, I entered a PhD program in Human Resource Development at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I chose HRD rather than HR management because I wanted theory that put people’s growth ahead of organizational metrics. My dissertation, completed in 2014, examined self-directed employee behavior, essentially how people come to work by themselves (Choi, 2025).

The doctorate opened doors I had not planned. I became a faculty member in the United States, then helped launch an American university’s overseas business campus, and later returned to the United States in 2024, a repatriation that brought its own lessons. None of these steps were on a map. Each grew from the inquiry that brought me to doctoral study in the first place.

2.3 Choosing a Doctorate That Fits Your Life

A doctorate does not have to mean leaving work for a full-time residential program. Several respected programs serve working adults in leadership and HRD:

• Louisiana State University has a long-standing School of Leadership and Human Resource Development offering a PhD, and LSU Shreveport offers a fully online EdD in Leadership Studies through LSU Online.

• Valdosta State University offers an online EdD in Leadership with cognates such as executive and higher education leadership.

• Regent University offers an online PhD in Organizational Leadership and a Doctor of Strategic Leadership with an HRD concentration, delivered online with virtual residencies.

• The University of Texas at Tyler offers a PhD in HRD in a hybrid format designed for working professionals.

• Texas State University offers online friendly doctorate programs for non-traditional students. .

Other online-friendly doctorates exist as well. Before choosing, check accreditation, residency requirements, dissertation support, total cost, and whether the program trains you to do research (typical of a PhD) or to apply it in practice (typical of an EdD).

3. Life Inquiry Comes First

My honest advice to this student, and to anyone considering a doctorate, is to place one question ahead of the others: What question about life and work do I need to answer?

Career success after the degree matters. But a doctorate takes years, and the hardest seasons are carried not by a job title waiting at the end but by a question you genuinely want answered. When my own path broke apart, through job losses, ethical doubts, and later a difficult chapter abroad, it was the inquiry that held me steady.

Here are several suggestions:

1. Start with your question, not the program: Write down the question about leadership, work, or people that keeps coming back to you. If you would pursue it even without a career payoff, that is a strong sign you are ready.

2. Match the degree to your goal: A PhD generally prepares you to create new knowledge through research and is the usual path into a research-focused faculty role. A professional doctorate, such as an EdD or a Doctor of Strategic Leadership, focuses more on applying research to practice. Both are valuable; they simply lead in different directions.

3. Look at programs designed for working adults: A few worth exploring in leadership and HRD include Louisiana State University (PhD in Leadership and Human Resource Development, plus a fully online EdD in Leadership Studies through LSU Shreveport), Valdosta State University (online EdD in Leadership), Regent University (online PhD in Organizational Leadership and a Doctor of Strategic Leadership with an HRD concentration), and UT Tyler (a hybrid PhD in HRD). When comparing programs, check accreditation, residency requirements, dissertation support, total cost, and the faculty you would work with.

4. Be honest about timing.: “Now” is the right time when you have a clear question, a realistic plan for time and finances, and support from the people around you. If one of those is missing, a short period of reading in your area of interest, talking with current doctoral students, or attending an information session can help you decide without losing momentum.

In my experience, once the inquiry is clear, new career windows open, often ones you could not have predicted, and something like a calling begins to take shape. You do not need to see the whole path. You need a question worth walking toward.

References

Choi, J. (2025). Inquiry and calling driven global protean academic career. In G. L. Lee & Y. B. Choi (Eds.), Journeys of successful Korean professors: Experiences, reflections, and advice (pp. 163–167). Independently published. https://tinyurl.com/choibook2025b

Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.006

About the Author

Prof. Dr. Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi (Managing Editor), University of Maine at Presque Isle

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD is an Associate Professor of Business at the University of Maine at Presque Isle and Editor-in-Coordination of K-GSP Forum (contact: jeonghwan.choi at gmail.com). With over 25 years of industry and consulting experience, he specializes in leadership development, human resource management, organizational behavior, and social entrepreneurship. His research focuses on workforce resilience, organizational health, and self-directed leadership — bridging rigorous scholarship with practical insight to cultivate leaders who create meaningful, sustainable, and humane organizations.

Suggested Citation

Choi, J. (2026, October 05]). A doctorate begins with a question: A letter to a non-traditional student. K-GSP Forum.

Original Article:

A Doctorate Begins With A Question Kgsp

2.07MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

한글요약

박사 과정은 질문에서 시작됩니다: 늦깎이 학생에게 보내는 편지

조직 리더십 석사(MAOL) 과정을 마친 한 학생이 물었습니다. 지금 이 시점에 박사 과정이 의미가 있을지, PhD와 EdD 같은 전문 박사 중 무엇이 맞을지, 직장과 가정을 지키며 온라인으로도 할 수 있을지, 그리고 학위를 받은 뒤 어떤 길이 열릴지. 모두 현실적이고 중요한 고민입니다. 다만 그 질문들은 모두 ‘결과’를 향해 있었고, 박사 과정이 ‘무엇을 위한 것인지’를 묻는 질문은 없었습니다.

저의 길도 곧지 않았습니다. 기계공학 엔지니어로 BOSCH에서 ABS를 개발했고, 담당하던 프로젝트가 해외로 옮겨 가며 동료 60여 명이 일자리를 잃는 것을 보며 다시는 부끄럽지 않기위해서, 경영학(MBA)를 했습니다. 한국과 독일에서 컨설턴트로 일하면서 “저 사람들은 왜 저렇게 일할까?”, “어떻게 하면 사람들이 스스로 일하게 할 수 있을까?”라는 질문을 품게 되었고, 이 질문이 늦은 나이에 일리노이대학교 인적자원개발(HRD) 박사 과정으로 저를 이끌었습니다. 이후 미국 대학 교수, 해외 캠퍼스 설립, 다시 미국으로의 귀환까지 이어진 지그재그 여정은 모두 그 질문에서 시작되었습니다.

박사 과정을 고민하는 분들께 몇 가지를 권합니다. 첫째, 프로그램보다 ‘나의 질문’에서 출발하십시오. 승진이나 물질적 보상과 상관없이 계속 붙잡고 싶은 “질문”이 있다면 준비가 된 것입니다. 둘째, 목표에 맞는 학위를 고르십시오. PhD는 연구를 통해 새로운 지식을 만드는 과정이고, EdD 같은 전문 박사는 연구를 현장에 적용하는 데 초점을 둡니다. 셋째, LSU, Valdosta State University, Regent University, UT Tyler 등 일하는 성인을 위한 온라인·하이브리드 과정을 살펴보되, 인증, 비용, 출석 요건, 논문 지도를 꼭 비교하십시오. 넷째, 시기는 정직하게 판단하십시오. 분명한 질문, 현실적인 계획, 주변의 지지가 갖춰졌을 때가 바로 ‘지금’입니다.

질문이 분명해지면 새로운 진로의 창과 삶의 소명은 뒤따라옵니다. 길 전체가 보이지 않아도 괜찮습니다. 의미있는 길을 걸어갈 만한 “질문” 하나면 충분합니다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

New England—a relatively small region of the United States—is no longer the nation’s cultural center, yet its legacy endures through Puritanism, Transcendentalism, and world-renowned literature. With the completion of America’s westward expansion, New England’s prominence gradually declined, except perhaps in the enduring excellence of its institutions of higher learning and the fame of the New England Patriots and the Boston Red Sox. Still, the American spirit cannot be fully understood without considering the cultural heritage of this region. For someone interested in American literature, visiting Salem and Concord is a particularly meaningful way to encounter some of the people, places, and events that have shaped the nation’s cultural history.

On September 28–30, 2006, I had an opportunity to visit the region. I had submitted a proposal to a cultural studies conference at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, and my proposal was accepted. I flew into Boston, rented a car at the airport, drove to Gordon College, and gave my presentation. Afterward, I toured several literary and historical sites in Salem and Concord. In those days, driving through cities and towns unfamiliar to me was not a big deal. Today, I would hesitate to do the same.

Exploring Salem and Concord gave me a sense of excitement and anticipation. I had never been to this part of the northeastern United States, but as someone who specializes in American literature, I knew I would have to see it someday. I can imagine how Protestants might feel when they visit the Schlosskirche, or Castle Church, in Wittenberg, where Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses in 1517. (I actually visited the church in 2025.) I can similarly imagine how Roman Catholics might feel when they visit the Vatican or how Anglicans might feel when they visit Canterbury Cathedral in London. Such visitors likely experience a quickened heartbeat as they approach places so deeply connected with their religious traditions. Literary enthusiasts can experience something similar when they approach the homes and haunts of famous writers, even on a second or third visit.

As someone from the Midwest, I found New England somewhat different from the rest of the country. America is a young country, but despite its relatively short history, New England often felt older and more deeply rooted in history than the Midwest. In the Midwest, we often mark the boundaries of houses or farms with fences. In New England, I noticed that some homes and pastures were bordered by low stone walls. When I visited England in May 2026, I saw many homes and farms similarly bordered by low stone walls. In a way, the area of New England I explored seemed more akin to England than to, say, the American Midwest or the Deep South. Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall,” published in North of Boston in 1914, is set in rural New England. Part of the poem reads:

I see him [a neighbor] there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

Based on my memory, references to stone walls are much harder to find in Midwestern poetry.

Another thing I noticed during my trip to Greater Boston was the relative lack of open, unobstructed space between towns. As I drove from Boston to Salem, I encountered many intersections and stop signs, which gave me the impression that the population density was considerably higher than in the Midwest. While living in Kansas and Nebraska from 1988 to 1999, I often drove for miles without seeing a community or even a house—and I liked it. Driving on highways in those states requires some planning because there can be long stretches without a rest area, restaurant, or gas station, sometimes for more than fifty miles. Accordingly, visiting New England produced a mild case of culture shock for me.

For an American literature scholar, Salem and Concord are extraordinary places. Salem, located on the northeastern coast near Boston, is forever associated with the Salem Witch Trials of 1692–93, a dark episode in American colonial history later immortalized in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (1953). Nineteen people were executed during the trials, while others died in jail or suffered other consequences.

Concord, about twenty miles west of Boston, was an important center of American Transcendentalism and home to several of the movement’s most influential writers and thinkers, including Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Nathaniel Hawthorne and Louisa May Alcott also lived and wrote there. Many of their homes, literary landmarks, and graves remain part of Concord’s historic landscape.

Based on my prior research, I also wanted to visit the Longfellow House–Washington’s Headquarters National Historic Site in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As I traveled from Concord to Cambridge, however, I found myself in the late-afternoon rush hour. Traffic moved slowly, and soon I felt overwhelmed by the endless stream of cars in both directions. Anxious about losing my way or getting into an accident, I turned around and headed toward Harvard. I took several pictures of the campus from inside the car before returning to my hotel in the suburbs. I remember thinking that the Harvard Law School sign on the lawn looked quite modest compared with the school’s enormous academic reputation. Later, I learned that driving in Boston is not for the faint of heart, especially for someone from a rural state like me.

Because my visit to Salem and Concord was part of a conference trip, I did not have enough time to see all the sites I wanted to visit. It would take at least two full days to explore the literary and historical landmarks of the two communities. Even a brief visit, however, offers a glimpse into both the celebrated and darker chapters of New England’s past.

NOTE: This photo essay is an expanded version of my photo essay “Salem and Concord, Massachusetts: Discover Traces of Witch Trials and Transcendentalism,” originally published in The Right Words: A Chapbook of Nonfiction, Issue 5, May 2018, pp. 31–37.

MAPS

Salem, Massachusetts, lies approximately 16 miles northeast of Boston. Concord is located about 20 miles west of Boston. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

Salem is less than a mile from the Atlantic Ocean. As someone who loves the water, I wish I had taken the time to visit the coastline. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

A map of Concord Center. In the north lies Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, where several celebrated writers, poets, and thinkers are buried. From the cemetery, one can look toward downtown Concord. Places such as Alcott Elementary School and Emerson Playground bear the names of two famous authors associated with Concord. Streets such as Thoreau Street and Walden Terrace also recall Henry David Thoreau, whose name and legacy remain closely connected with the town. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

Walden Pond State Reservation is located about 1.5 miles south of Concord Center, Massachusetts. Thoreau’s Cove is located on the northwestern shore of Walden Pond, near the site of Thoreau’s cabin. Walden Street connects Concord Center with Walden Pond, offering a direct route to the reservation. Traffic near the pond can be extremely heavy on busy summer days. However, traffic was light when I drove along the road in late September 2006. Composite image based on map data © OpenStreetMap contributors.

SALEM

Located near the Witch House, the Salem Witch Dungeon Museum offers live reenactments of the 1692 Salem witch trials and guided tours of a reconstructed dungeon. Visitors can experience the conditions and see the actual size of the prison cells where the accused were held.

The plaque on the wall reads,

THE WITCH GAOL

Here stood the Salem Gaol built in 1684, used until 1813, [and] razed in 1957. During the witchcraft persecution of 1692, many of the accused were imprisoned here. One of them, the aged Giles [Corey] (b. 1611), was pressed to death on these grounds.

Salem’s Witch Trials Memorial honors the 20 victims of the witch trials of 1692 with granite walls, benches bearing their names, and words of the accused, symbolically cut short.

A street banner in Salem titled “Haunted Happenings” reflects the city’s enduring cultural association with the witch trials of the late seventeenth century.

A street sign points the way to the House of the Seven Gables, one of Salem’s best-known landmarks.

The House of the Seven Gables is a Georgian-style mansion in Salem. The oldest surviving mansion in New England, it was built in 1668 and features a secret staircase. This building inspired Hawthorne to write his famous romance The House of the Seven Gables (1851). Chapter One of the novel begins with this paragraph:

Halfway down a by-street of one of our New England towns stands a rusty wooden house, with seven acutely peaked gables, facing towards various points of the compass, and a huge, clustered chimney in the midst. The street is Pyncheon Street; the house is the old Pyncheon House; and an elm-tree, of wide circumference, rooted before the door, is familiar to every town-born child by the title of the Pyncheon Elm. On my occasional visits to the town aforesaid, I seldom failed to turn down Pyncheon Street, for the sake of passing through the shadow of these two antiquities,—the great elm-tree and the weather-beaten edifice.

The Salem Custom House, constructed in 1818, was where Nathaniel Hawthorne served as surveyor. This historic building collected between 8 and 12 percent of the nation’s revenues in the early nineteenth century. Its role in his life inspired “The Custom-House,” the introductory chapter of The Scarlet Letter (1850). In the first two paragraphs of the chapter, Hawthorne explains that he is using “The Custom-House” to introduce himself and describe his three years working there. Although he normally avoids talking about himself, he feels justified in sharing this experience because he imagines a sympathetic reader listening to him. He also presents himself primarily as an editor, rather than the author, of the story that follows. He claims that the Custom-House sketch helps explain how he came into possession of the narrative and provides some evidence of its authenticity. At the same time, the autobiographical introduction allows him to portray the people, setting, and way of life surrounding the Custom-House.

CONCORD

I am entering Concord, a town of about 18,500 people, located 20 miles northwest of Boston. The street sign notes that the town was incorporated in 1635.

I have reached Alcott Road, named after Louisa May Alcott (1832–88), the novelist and short story writer best known for Little Women (1868).

Louisa May Alcott’s Orchard House, located at 399 Lexington Road, was the Alcott family home. Each October, the Louisa May Alcott 5K Walk/10K Run is held to benefit Orchard House.

The Wayside, at 455 Lexington Road in Concord, is just a block from Louisa May Alcott’s Orchard House. This historic residence was home to three celebrated authors—Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Margaret Sidney. Hawthorne wrote some of his fiction here during his years in Concord.

Alongside The Wayside is the Larch Path, a gentle, wooded slope where Nathaniel Hawthorne often strolled and found inspiration for his writing. The quiet path offers a glimpse of the natural surroundings that shaped his imagination during his years in Concord.

Hawthorne Inn in Concord.

A southward view of downtown Concord from the low hill immediately north of the town center.

The entrance to Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. Located on Bedford Street, Concord, this historic cemetery is the final resting place for more than 10,000 people. Its most famous section, Authors Ridge, lies on the northeastern side of the cemetery and contains the graves of Henry David Thoreau (1817-62), Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-64), Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-82), Louisa May Alcott (1832–88), and Margaret Sidney (the pseudonym of Harriett Lothrop, 1844-1924).

Two stone markers at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery point to the “Authors Ridge,” where Emerson, Hawthorne, Alcott, and Emerson are buried.

Henry David Thoreau’s tombstone at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Concord. It is in the Authors Ridge section of the cemetery.

The Thoreau family gravesite at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. Six names are engraved on the large stone in the center. Henry David Thoreau is the fifth name.

The Emerson family gravesite at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s gravestone is larger than many others at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery.

The Emerson family gravesite includes a stone commemorating Emerson’s son, Edward Waldo Emerson (1844–1930).

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s gravestone bears only his last name.

The gravestone of Louisa May Alcott, a novelist, short story writer, and poet. She wrote some books anonymously and others under a pseudonym, but she is best known for Little Women (1868) and its three sequels. Raised in a Transcendentalist family in New England, Alcott grew up among prominent thinkers and writers, such as Emerson, Hawthorne, and Thoreau.

Sleepy Hollow Cemetery is vast, so it took me more than an hour to stroll through the entire cemetery. It was meaningful to see the gravestones of some well-known historical figures, yet the most memorable one for me bore the names of a Chinese couple. The husband’s surname was Pan (Ban in Korean), and his wife’s surname was Shi (Seok in Korean). The husband died in 1969, while the wife was still alive when I visited in 2006. Their attractive gravestone was surrounded by stones bearing predominantly English names. I wondered how this Chinese couple had drifted to New England of all places, rather than to San Francisco or New York, where there are well-established Chinese communities. I lingered at the gravesite for a while, and later I composed a poem about the experience:

On the Plateau: West Plains, Missouri
(A tanka prose)

Despite what its name implies, West Plains is near the heart of the Ozark Mountains, not in the flatlands. The city itself looks relatively flat, but it is surrounded by hills, and its elevation is around 1,000 feet. West Plains is in Howell County, approximately 20 miles from the Arkansas border. Country singers Porter Wagoner (1927–2007) and Jan Howard (1929–2020) were born here. U.S. Route 63 Business is called Porter Wagoner Boulevard in West Plains, and the Harlin Museum of West Plains displays some of his personal memorabilia, including a guitar. Whenever I visit West Plains for the annual Ozarks Studies Symposium, I stay at the West Plains Motel along the boulevard. The motel is reasonably priced, close to the conference site, and the manager is hospitable. West Plains is predominantly white, but one year I noticed the Korean surname Kim displayed in front of a small clinic. I was surprised to learn that a Korean doctor had somehow drifted to this remote place.

Sleepy Hollow Cemetery
amid thousands of
English names
one gravestone bears
Chinese names

[Published in Grist 2023: Anthology of Missouri State Poetry Society, p. 25]

The Old Manse: Built around 1770 by Emerson’s grandfather, this historic house was later home to both Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne. On the southeastern side lies a garden modeled after the one Thoreau planted as a wedding gift for the Hawthornes. It stands at 269 Monument Street.

Walden Pond State Reservation: Henry David Thoreau—transcendentalist, pacifist, and author of Civil Disobedience (1849) and Walden; or, Life in the Woods (1854)—built and lived in a one-room cabin on the northeastern side of this pond. Although the original cabin no longer exists, stone markers indicate where it once stood. Near the parking lot, visitors can see a replica of the cabin and a statue of Thoreau. The pond is located at 915 Walden Street (Route 126), and an admission fee is charged.

An informational panel at the entrance to Walden Pond State Reservation, Concord, describes Thoreau’s life and his connection to Walden Pond and the surrounding woods.

Walden Pond looks tranquil in the autumn sunlight of New England.

The path from the park entrance to the site of Thoreau’s one-room cabin.

Thoreau’s cabin site features a quotation from his book Walden:

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”

According to the stone marker, Ronald Wells Robbins discovered the site of Thoreau’s cabin on November 11, 1945.

Thoreau’s cabin site includes a ground marker indicating the location of his woodshed.

This ground marker bears the following inscription:

Beneath these stones
lies the chimney foundation
of Thoreau’s cabin, 1845–1847

“Go thou my incense upward
from this hearth.”

A statue of Henry David Thoreau stands before a replica of his one-room cabin, where he lived from 1845 to 1847. His contemplative posture reflects his effort to live in harmony with nature.

The furnishings inside the replica of Thoreau’s one-room cabin reflect his desire to live a simple and natural life. His way of life somewhat resembles that of the Venerable Beopjeong (1932-2010), who advocated a life of non-possession in Korea.

The Concord Museum, founded in 1886, preserves and interprets Concord’s rich cultural history, including its roles in the American Revolution and Transcendentalism, through a collection of more than 45,000 objects. The museum is located across from the Ralph Waldo Emerson Memorial House.

About the Author

Professor of English and Creative Writing and Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and Theology, Missouri Baptist University

John J. Han, PhD, is the author, editor, co-editor, or translator of 38 books published by Rodopi, Peter Lang, McFarland, Bloomsbury Academic, and other presses. He has published hundreds of scholarly articles and more than 3,000 poems, mostly haiku, in journals and anthologies around the world. His forthcoming book, Echoes from the Hills: Critical Essays on Ozarks Literature, co-edited with C. Clark Triplett, will be published by the University of Arkansas Press. He is in his 28th year as a full-time faculty member at Missouri Baptist University, where he has taught since 1999. He has also taught at Kansas State University, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Nebraska Wesleyan University, and Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as a visiting scholar at Georgia College & State University and the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

When AI Attacks Finance

From Cybersecurity Incident to National Security Challenge

Executive Summary

Recent cyberattacks against multiple Korean financial institutions reveal a troubling change in the economics of cybercrime. Authorities reported that seven financial companies showed evidence of related attacks and that attackers may have used artificial intelligence to automate large-scale reconnaissance and intrusion attempts. The immediate damage reportedly centered on information leakage from employee and auxiliary systems rather than direct financial loss. Yet the deeper concern is systemic: AI can lower the cost of attacking many institutions simultaneously. Financial cybersecurity must therefore evolve from protecting individual organizations to building collective, AI-enabled resilience across the financial ecosystem.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, financial security, economic security, zero trust, cybercrime, cyberattack

1. Opening

For centuries, the essential function of a bank has been to protect something people cannot easily protect themselves: trust. Customers deposit money because they believe that the institution will safeguard their assets, identity, and financial information. In the digital economy, however, that trust is no longer protected only by vaults, guards, and physical barriers. It depends on millions of lines of software, networks, cloud services, application programming interfaces, employee accounts, authentication systems, and third-party connections.

The recent wave of cyberattacks against Korean financial institutions demonstrates how rapidly this environment is changing. According to financial authorities, attacks affecting Shinhan Bank, KB Kookmin Bank, Hana Bank, BNK Busan Bank, Yegaram Savings Bank, Welcome Savings Bank, and Hyundai Capital showed evidence of common or related attack activity. Authorities also reported that attackers appeared to have used AI tools to automate attacks against multiple financial companies. Approximately 500 financial companies were subsequently given security warnings and emergency inspection requirements. (Yonhap News Agency)

The significance of these events extends beyond the question of whether individual customers lost money. The more important question is whether AI is changing the scale, speed, and economics of financial cyberattacks. If one attacker can use AI to examine thousands of systems rather than manually investigate a few targets, cybersecurity becomes a fundamentally different problem. The financial sector therefore needs to think beyond the traditional model of defending one institution at a time.

2. Main Argument

The central argument of this essay is straightforward: AI-enabled attacks transform financial cybersecurity from an institutional problem into an ecosystem and national-security problem. Three changes deserve particular attention: the automation of attacks, the vulnerability of peripheral systems, and the need for collective AI-enabled defense.

2.1 AI Changes the Economics of Cyberattacks

Traditional cyberattacks often required substantial human effort. An attacker needed to identify targets, collect information, discover vulnerabilities, test possible entry points, and determine which targets were worth pursuing. Human time therefore imposed a practical limit on the scale of an attack.

AI changes that equation. An AI-enabled attacker can potentially automate repetitive reconnaissance, analyze publicly available information, identify patterns across systems, and generate or adapt attack attempts. The important issue is not that AI necessarily makes every attack technically sophisticated. Rather, AI can make large numbers of attacks economically feasible.

This distinction is critical. Imagine that attacking one financial institution requires ten hours of human investigation. An attacker must then carefully choose which institution to target. But if AI reduces the human effort required to examine thousands of potential targets, the attacker can search broadly and allow the weakest target to emerge. The strategy changes from selective targeting to automated discovery.

The recent Korean incidents appear consistent with this broader concern. Financial authorities reported that the same attacker IP was found in multiple incidents and that attackers changed IP addresses while conducting repeated attacks. They also assessed that AI tools may have been used to launch large-scale automated attacks. (Yonhap News Agency)

This does not mean that every observed attack has been definitively attributed to AI, nor does it establish a particular national actor. In fact, authorities noted that an open-source AI penetration-testing system associated with some attack traces could be used internationally, making attribution to a specific country inappropriate at this stage. (Yonhap News Agency)

The distinction between evidence and interpretation matters. What has been reported is evidence of related attack patterns and suspected AI use. The broader conclusion that AI will permanently lower the cost of cyberattacks is an analytical judgment supported by the direction of technological development. Responsible cybersecurity policy should take that possibility seriously without overstating what current investigations have proven.

2.2 The Weakest System Can Become the Gateway to the Strongest Institution

The second lesson concerns the changing meaning of a financial institution’s attack surface. A bank may devote enormous resources to protecting its core banking infrastructure while maintaining smaller systems for employees, loan agents, customers, marketing, authentication, partner organizations, or specialized business functions. These systems may appear less important because they do not directly process the institution’s principal financial transactions.

That assumption can be dangerous. Recent reporting indicates that attackers targeted employee-facing systems and auxiliary or externally exposed services in several incidents. The resulting information leakage reportedly involved such systems rather than direct disruption of internet or mobile banking or direct monetary losses. (Yonhap News Agency) This illustrates a fundamental principle of cybersecurity: the security of the whole system can be constrained by the least protected connected component.

In the physical world, a bank might build a reinforced vault but leave a side entrance poorly protected. In cyberspace, however, there may be thousands of such side entrances. They can include forgotten web services, outdated applications, exposed APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), third-party connections, remote-access accounts, cloud resources, and employee portals.

AI makes the problem more serious because an attacker does not need to know in advance which entrance is weakest. Automated reconnaissance can search for weaknesses at scale. This is why cybersecurity should move from a narrow concept of “protecting important servers” toward continuous attack-surface management. Financial institutions need an accurate inventory of externally exposed assets, continuous vulnerability assessment, strong identity controls, least-privilege access, multi-factor authentication (MFA), and rapid isolation of compromised systems.

The principle also supports the logic of zero trust. Zero trust does not assume that a user, device, application, or network location should automatically be trusted simply because it appears to be inside the organizational boundary. Every access request should be evaluated according to identity, context, authorization, and risk. The challenge is not simply to build a higher wall. It is to recognize that in a highly connected financial ecosystem, the wall itself has become porous.

2.3 AI Must Become Part of the Defense, but AI Cannot Be the Final Authority

The third lesson is perhaps the most paradoxical: if attackers use AI, defenders must also use AI. The scale of modern financial networks makes purely manual security monitoring increasingly unrealistic. AI can analyze large volumes of security logs, identify anomalous behavior, correlate events across systems, prioritize alerts, and support incident response. The financial authorities’ current response already points toward stronger technology-based defenses and a sector-wide security posture. (Daum)

Yet “AI versus AI” should not become the entire strategy. AI systems themselves can fail. They can produce false positives, miss novel attacks, be manipulated by adversarial inputs, or make decisions that are difficult for security personnel to understand. If an organization gives an AI system excessive authority, a mistaken automated decision could potentially produce a second incident while attempting to stop the first one.

This is why trustworthy AI requires more than accuracy. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identifies characteristics such as security, resilience, accountability, transparency, explainability, privacy, and reliability as components of trustworthy AI. Its AI Risk Management Framework organizes risk management around four functions: Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage (NIST, 2023). (NIST)

The relevance to finance is becoming even more direct. In April 2026, NIST began developing a profile for trustworthy AI in critical infrastructure. The proposed profile specifically considers AI-enabled cybersecurity incident response, tested guardrails, explainable compliance and risk monitoring, and human oversight. (NIST)

The lesson for financial institutions is clear: AI should accelerate human decision-making, not eliminate accountability. Low-risk repetitive tasks can be automated. High-risk actions should receive stronger controls, logging, validation, and appropriate human oversight. The more authority an AI system possesses, the stronger its testing and governance requirements should be.

Counterpoint and Limitation

It would be premature to describe every recent financial cyberattack as an “AI attack.” Current public reporting uses terms such as suspected, appears, and traces, and investigations remain ongoing. The presence of an AI-related tool or infrastructure does not by itself establish that an autonomous AI agent independently planned and executed the entire operation.

This distinction is important for two reasons. First, exaggerating the AI component can distract from familiar cybersecurity weaknesses such as inadequate authentication, insufficient access control, exposed services, outdated software, and poor asset management. These weaknesses remain important regardless of whether the attacker uses AI. Second, excessive emphasis on AI can encourage organizations to purchase another AI product while neglecting basic security controls. A sophisticated AI security platform cannot compensate for an institution that does not know which systems are exposed to the internet.

The appropriate conclusion is therefore not that AI has suddenly replaced conventional cybercrime. Rather, AI is becoming an amplifier of existing cyber capabilities. It can make reconnaissance faster, scale repetitive activities, and potentially allow attackers to operate across a larger number of targets. That is precisely why traditional cybersecurity must become stronger at the same time that AI capabilities are introduced.

3. Closing

The recent Korean financial cyber incidents should be understood as a warning about the future of digital trust. The immediate incidents may involve information leakage from auxiliary systems rather than direct theft of customer funds, but the strategic implication is larger. Financial institutions are deeply interconnected, and AI can potentially allow an attacker to search that interconnected ecosystem at unprecedented speed. (Yonhap News Agency) The appropriate response is therefore not simply to ask which bank was attacked. We should ask whether the financial system can detect related attacks across institutions, share threat information rapidly, isolate compromised systems, and recover before local incidents become systemic crises.

This requires three levels of action. At the institutional level, financial organizations should continuously identify external assets, strengthen identity and access management, enforce least privilege, deploy multi-factor authentication, monitor third-party connections, and test incident-response procedures.

At the sector level, financial institutions should share threat intelligence and indicators of compromise rapidly. A vulnerability discovered at one institution should become a warning for every institution with a similar architecture. The response to AI-enabled attacks must therefore be collective rather than isolated.

At the national level, governments should treat financial cybersecurity as economic security. Banking, payments, securities, insurance, and related digital infrastructure are essential components of modern society. Their resilience should therefore be integrated into national cybersecurity and critical-infrastructure strategies.

The deeper lesson is philosophical as well as technical. A bank does not ultimately sell databases, mobile applications, or algorithms. It sells trust. AI can make financial services faster, cheaper, and more intelligent, but it can also make attacks faster, cheaper, and more scalable. The future of financial competition will therefore not be determined simply by which institution adopts the most AI. It will increasingly be determined by which institution can use AI while preserving trust.

The central question of the AI financial era is consequently not: “How much AI can finance use?” It is: “How much trustworthy AI can finance responsibly use?” That distinction may determine whether AI becomes a foundation for a safer financial civilization or a multiplier of systemic vulnerability.

5. References

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 (NIST)

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2026). AI Risk Management Framework: Trustworthy AI in Critical Infrastructure Profile, concept note. U.S. Department of Commerce. (NIST)

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2026). AI Risk Management Framework. U.S. Department of Commerce. (NIST)

연합뉴스. (2026, October 4). 금융사 해킹사고, 동일 공격자 IP 여러 곳 발견…AI활용 추정. (Yonhap News Agency)

연합뉴스. (2026, October 4). AI로 상호금융까지 광범위 공격…“해킹 시도 훨씬 많을 수도”. (Yonhap News Agency)

조선일보. (2026, October 5). [사설] 금융권 전방위 위협한 AI 해킹, 중대한 안보 문제다. (조선일보)

6. About the Author

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Full list of his K-GSP columns:

https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_young_choi

Full list of his Books at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0DMZ5S6R7/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=381619c7-0df9-44f4-b943-275bf03d5723&ccs_id=3f36c38c-ba92-4dcf-a124-af49ce39a878

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

7. Suggested Citation

Choi, Y. B. (2026). When AI Attacks Finance: From Cybersecurity Incident to National Security Challenge. K-GSP Forum.

한글요약

최근 한국 금융권에서 발생한 연쇄적인 해킹 사고는 인공지능이 사이버 공격의 규모와 속도를 변화시키고 있음을 보여주는 중요한 사례다. 금융당국은 신한은행, KB국민은행, 하나은행, BNK부산은행, 예가람저축은행, 웰컴저축은행, 현대캐피탈 등 7개 금융사의 침해사고에서 동일하거나 연관된 공격 정황을 확인했으며, 공격자가 AI 도구를 활용해 다수 금융사를 대상으로 자동화된 공격을 수행했을 가능성을 조사하고 있다. (Yonhap News Agency)

이 사건의 핵심은 단순히 “AI를 사용하는 해커가 등장했다”는 데 있지 않다. 더 중요한 변화는 AI가 공격자의 탐색과 반복적인 공격 활동을 자동화함으로써 사이버 공격의 비용을 낮추고 공격 대상을 크게 확대할 수 있다는 점이다. 특히 금융기관의 핵심 시스템뿐 아니라 직원용 시스템, 외부 웹서비스, 업무지원 시스템과 같은 상대적으로 덜 보호된 시스템이 공격의 진입점이 될 수 있다. 따라서 금융보안은 개별 서버를 보호하는 방식에서 전체 공격표면을 지속적으로 관리하는 방식으로 발전해야 한다.

동시에 AI는 방어의 중요한 도구가 될 수 있다. 대규모 로그 분석, 이상행동 탐지, 위협정보 분석, 사고 대응 등에서 AI는 인간의 능력을 보완할 수 있다. 그러나 AI 자체도 새로운 공격표면이 될 수 있으므로, AI를 무조건 신뢰해서는 안 된다. NIST의 AI Risk Management Framework가 강조하듯이 AI의 신뢰성은 정확성뿐 아니라 보안성, 회복탄력성, 책임성, 투명성, 설명가능성 등을 함께 포함한다. (NIST)

결국 AI 금융보안은 개별 금융기관만의 문제가 아니다. 금융기관 간 위협정보 공유, 금융당국의 공동 대응, 핵심 인프라 보호, AI 거버넌스가 함께 작동해야 한다. 금융의 가장 중요한 자산은 돈보다 신뢰이기 때문이다. AI 시대의 금융 경쟁력은 가장 많은 AI를 사용하는 금융기관이 아니라 가장 신뢰할 수 있는 AI를 책임 있게 사용하는 금융기관에서 결정될 것이다. +++

Executive Summary

The IEEE Authorship and Open Access Symposium (October 1, 2026) offered a publisher’s view of three questions every author now faces: how to get published, how to use artificial intelligence responsibly, and who pays for open access. This article summarizes the speakers’ concerns and solutions and connects them to my earlier K-GSP article on APCs. Together they suggest that venue choice, research integrity, and access costs all depend on governance and verification.

Keywords: open access, article processing charges, generative AI, research integrity, scholarly publishing

1. One Day, One Webinar

A day after I published an article on open access and article processing charges (APCs), a colleague shared the slides from a webinar I had missed. It came from IEEE, one of the largest scholarly publishers in engineering and computing. I expected a sales pitch. What I found was something more useful: a publisher speaking openly about the same tensions my co-authors and I had worked through in a single morning of emails.

My earlier article argued that open access is a business model, not a quality level, and that the real test of a journal is its editorial governance (Choi, 2026). The IEEE webinar approached the same terrain from the other side of the desk. Its speakers were editors and publishing staff explaining what they reward, what they reject, and what they now fear from artificial intelligence (AI).

2. What IEEE Told Its Authors

The webinar was the IEEE Authorship and Open Access Symposium: Tips and Best Practices to Get Published from IEEE Editors, held on October 1, 2026, for an audience in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (Blaabjerg et al., 2026). Three speakers shared the program, and each one raised a concern and offered a remedy.

Figure 1

Screenshot of the IEEE Authorship and Open Access Symposium Webinar Platform

Note. The live broadcast interface displays the three featured speakers—Dr. Frede Blaabjerg, Eszter Lukács, and Joshua Horowitz—alongside Dr. Blaabjerg’s presentation slide detailing paper structure and methodology guidelines. From IEEE Authorship and Open Access Symposium: Tips and Best Practices to Get Published from IEEE Editors, by F. Blaabjerg, E. Lukács, and J. Horowitz, 2026, IEEE (https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/5467929/1780295C18BCB31FEF331400E48E35C4). Copyright 2026 by IEEE.

2.1 What Editors Reward and Reject

Dr. Frede Blaabjerg, Professor of Power Electronics and Drives at Aalborg University and a former Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, spoke from the editor’s chair. His advice was practical. Choose one target journal, since simultaneous submissions are unethical. Read its aims and scope. Write a specific title and an abstract of 250 words or fewer. He listed the usual reasons for rejection: a poor fit, serious scientific flaws, weak writing, incremental work, and a case too thin to persuade reviewers.

His sharper message concerned ethics. Plagiarism, he noted, was once the main form of misconduct. Publishers now also screen for disguised paraphrasing, citation coercion by editors or reviewers, citation stacking between journals, and paper mills that sell authorship. These are the same warning signs my earlier article described. High rates of citation within a publisher’s own journals and coordinated review networks, like the one Frontiers exposed in 2025 (Retraction Watch, 2025), are not problems of open access as such. They are failures of governance, and the webinar shows that a large publisher now treats them as routine screening work.

2.2 Using AI Without Losing the Evidence

Eszter Lukács, a Client Services Manager and Research Strategy Specialist at IEEE, turned to the risks of AI in research. Generative AI tools, she explained, can introduce hallucinations, bias, loss of provenance, and false citations. Her remedies asked researchers to slow down. Verify every citation an AI tool supplies, because a source you cannot find probably does not exist. Cross-check claims against primary sources, confirm that you cite the current version of record, and check for retractions. Write specific prompts that point toward trusted primary sources rather than generic web content.

IEEE’s rules follow the same logic. Authors must disclose AI-generated text, figures, images, or code in the acknowledgments, name the system, and identify the sections involved; disclosure is recommended even for grammar editing. Reviewers may not upload manuscripts to public AI platforms, because doing so breaches confidentiality. IEEE has also launched an AI Research Suite whose overviews link back to source documents so that users can check the answers (IEEE, 2026). One slide even listed common cues of AI-generated prose, including heavy use of em dashes, while warning that AI detectors are unreliable.

2.3 Open Access Options and a Correction to My Checklist

Josh Horowitz, an IEEE regional manager and publishing solutions specialist, described the open access options. IEEE offers more than 180 hybrid journals, more than 30 fully open access journals, and IEEE Access, a multidisciplinary open access journal with a stated peer review time of four to six weeks. IEEE reports more than 150,000 open access articles and more than 750 institutions with open access agreements, many of which cover the full APC. Authors can check their institution’s status at open.ieee.org.

This confirms the central point of my earlier article: whether an author pays often depends on the institution, not the journal. It also adds a correction. IEEE’s submission checklist tells authors to agree on the corresponding author before submission, because authors cannot be changed midstream. My co-authors and I asked a journal to change the corresponding author during review, and that journal kindly considered it. At an IEEE journal, that move might not have been possible. The lesson is simple: settle the corresponding author, and check that person’s institutional agreement, before you submit.

A fair reading also requires some caution. The webinar was a publisher presenting its own journals, and its rankings and impact figures are IEEE’s own selection from Clarivate and Scopus data. Speed appears as a benefit of open access, just as it does in the marketing of publishers that have drawn criticism. Speed alone tells us little. What matters is whether rigorous review and transparent governance stand behind it.

Figure 2

Summary of IEEE Authorship Symposium (Oct. 01, 2026)

Note. A visual overview of a research symposium summarizing key lessons for academic publication. The infographic presents a four-step process—publishing strategy, responsible AI use, open access funding, and journal governance—highlighting best practices for researchers.

3. Governance, Verification, and the Names on the Paper

Read together, my earlier article and the IEEE webinar point in one direction. Getting published well now depends on three layers of judgment. The first is choosing the right venue. The second is protecting the integrity of the work, especially when AI tools are part of the process. The third is understanding who pays for access. None of these layers can be delegated entirely to a journal, an index, or an algorithm.

This matters most for scholars at smaller institutions, including many in our own K-GSP community, who may lack a library team to explain agreements or a research office to review AI policies. The IEEE webinar was free and its recording was shared openly. That kind of transparency helps. But the habits it recommends belong to us: verify before citing, disclose what tools we used, and ask early who will carry the corresponding author’s role.

Artificial intelligence can find sources faster than any of us. It cannot vouch for them. In the end, the integrity of a publication still rests on the people whose names appear on it.

References

Blaabjerg, F., Lukács, E., & Horowitz, J. (2026, October 1). IEEE authorship and open access symposium: Tips and best practices to get published from IEEE editors [Webinar]. IEEE. https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/5467929/1780295C18BCB31FEF331400E48E35C4

Choi, J. (2026, September 30). Who pays to make research free? Open access, APCs, and the quality question. K-GSP Forum. https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_jerry_choi

IEEE. (2026). IEEE Xplore AI Research Suite [Brochure]. https://www.ieee.org/IEEEXploreAI

Retraction Watch. (2025, July 29). Frontiers to retract 122 articles, links thousands in other publishers’ journals to “unethical” network. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/29/frontiers-retract-122-articles-links-thousands-other-publishers-journals-to-unethical-network

About the Author

About the Author

Prof. Dr. Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi (Managing Editor), University of Maine at Presque Isle

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD is an Associate Professor of Business at the University of Maine at Presque Isle and Editor-in-Coordination of K-GSP Forum (contact: jeonghwan.choi at gmail.com). With over 25 years of industry and consulting experience, he specializes in leadership development, human resource management, organizational behavior, and social entrepreneurship. His research focuses on workforce resilience, organizational health, and self-directed leadership — bridging rigorous scholarship with practical insight to cultivate leaders who create meaningful, sustainable, and humane organizations.

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor in Chief) — Regent University

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

Original Article :

20261002 What The Editors Want Kgsp

2.65MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Suggested Citation

Choi, J. & Choi Y., (2026, October 02). What the editors want: Lessons from IEEE’s authorship and open access symposium. K-GSP Forum. [URL]

한글요약

편집자들이 바라는 것: IEEE 저자·오픈 액세스 심포지엄에서 얻은 교훈

2026년 10월 1일 열린 IEEE 저자·오픈 액세스 심포지엄은 연구자라면 누구나 마주하는 세 가지 질문을 다뤘다. 어떻게 논문을 출판할 것인가, 인공지능을 어떻게 책임 있게 쓸 것인가, 그리고 오픈 액세스 비용은 누가 내는가이다.

올보르대학교의 프레데 블로비에르 교수는 편집자의 입장에서 조언했다. 한 번에 한 학술지에만 투고하고, 학술지의 목적과 범위를 먼저 읽으라고 했다. 또 요즘 출판사들은 표절뿐 아니라 교묘한 바꿔쓰기, 인용 강요, 학술지 간 인용 몰아주기, 저자 자리를 파는 ‘페이퍼 밀’까지 걸러 낸다고 설명했다.

IEEE의 에스테르 루카치는 생성형 AI가 거짓 정보와 가짜 인용을 만들어 낼 수 있다고 경고했다. 그래서 AI가 알려 준 출처는 반드시 직접 확인하고, AI를 사용했다면 감사의 글에 밝혀야 한다고 강조했다. 심사자가 심사 중인 원고를 공개 AI에 올리는 것도 금지된다.

조시 호로위츠는 IEEE의 오픈 액세스 경로를 소개하며, 750곳이 넘는 기관이 협약을 맺고 있고 많은 협약이 게재료 전액을 지원한다고 밝혔다.

이 내용은 K-GSP 이전 글, 곧 게재료를 누가 내는지는 학술지보다 소속 기관에 달려 있다는 주장을 뒷받침한다.

동시에 한 가지를 바로잡는다. IEEE는 투고 전에 교신저자를 정해야 하며, 중간에 바꿀 수 없다고 안내한다. 결국 좋은 출판은 학술지 선택, 연구 진실성, 비용 이해라는 세 가지 판단에 달려 있고, 그 책임은 논문에 이름을 올린 사람에게 있다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Discovering the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg

Art, Memory, and the Human Imagination

Abstract

The Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg offer more than a collection of beautiful objects. They provide a distinctive way of entering history through art, material culture, memory, and human imagination. Located within the historic setting of Colonial Williamsburg, the museums bring together fine art, decorative art, folk art, portraits, furniture, household objects, and other artifacts that illuminate the lives and experiences of people in early America. Rather than treating these objects simply as illustrations of the past, the museum encourages visitors to consider them as material evidence of human choices, relationships, aspirations, labor, social identities, cultural exchange, and memory. As Alberti (2005) observes, museum objects acquire meanings through the relationships among objects, people, institutions, and histories. In this sense, an object displayed in a museum is not merely an old thing; it can become a material witness to a particular human world.

The museums are especially significant because they bring together different forms of artistic expression and social experience. The DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Museum reveals how furniture, silver, ceramics, textiles, paintings, and other objects reflected changing patterns of craftsmanship, commerce, taste, and social life. The Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum expands this perspective by demonstrating that artistic creativity was not limited to formally trained artists. Folk art preserves the imagination and experiences of ordinary people whose visual expressions often emerged from everyday life. Together, the museums invite visitors to reconsider the boundaries between “fine art,” “folk art,” and ordinary material culture.

This experience also has particular significance in the age of generative artificial intelligence. AI systems can now produce images, imitate artistic styles, and generate visually compelling objects within seconds. Yet museums remind us that the meaning of an artwork does not exist solely in its visual appearance. Meaning also emerges from the human circumstances in which an object was created, used, preserved, remembered, and interpreted. A handcrafted chair, portrait, quilt, or household object can therefore communicate something that an algorithmically generated image cannot independently possess: a trace of human experience embedded in time and material.

Visiting the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg consequently becomes an opportunity not only to study American art history but also to reflect on what it means to create, remember, and remain human. The museums demonstrate that history is not simply a collection of dates and events. It is also preserved in objects, images, materials, gestures, and stories. In an era when AI increasingly participates in the production of cultural artifacts, these collections encourage us to ask a fundamental question: What are we creating today, and what will our creations tell future generations about who we were?

Keywords: Colonial Williamsburg; Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg; American art; folk art; decorative arts; material culture; memory; human imagination; museums; generative AI

Walking into History — Williamsburg and Living History

There are places where history is something we read, places where history is something we see, and a few rare places where history seems to breathe around us. Williamsburg, Virginia, belongs to the last category. Walking along its brick paths, passing eighteenth-century buildings, gardens, workshops, and quiet streets, one gradually becomes aware that the past is not necessarily a distant country. It can be reconstructed, interpreted, questioned, and experienced through the objects that people left behind. At the center of this experience are the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg, where paintings, furniture, ceramics, textiles, silver, glass, sculpture, and folk art transform the history of early America into something intimate and tangible.

The Art Museums are particularly compelling because they do not ask visitors to think of art as something separated from ordinary life. Their collections bring together fine art and decorative art, professional and folk traditions, objects of beauty and objects of practical use. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation describes its collections as containing more than 70,000 examples of fine, decorative, mechanical, and folk art, ranging from American and British objects of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries to American folk art extending into the present (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026a). Many of these objects are displayed in the museums, while others furnish historic buildings and help visitors understand how people lived in early Virginia.

This approach immediately changes the way one looks at a museum object. A chair is no longer simply a chair. A silver vessel is no longer merely an attractive piece of craftsmanship. A portrait is not merely an image of a person who lived long ago. Each object becomes a fragment of a human story. It carries traces of labor, family, social status, trade, aspiration, cultural exchange, and memory. The museum therefore becomes more than a place for aesthetic appreciation. It becomes a place where material culture and human experience meet.

The experience begins even before one enters a particular gallery. Williamsburg itself functions as a kind of prelude to the museums. Its reconstructed and preserved environment encourages visitors to think spatially about history. One does not encounter the past only through dates and names but through scale, texture, distance, architecture, and movement. A narrow street can suggest how people traveled; a doorway can suggest how domestic and public life intersected; a garden can reveal ideas about food, beauty, labor, and status. Within this historical landscape, the museums provide another layer of interpretation. They bring the objects that once occupied such spaces into a setting where their individual stories can be studied more closely.

The Art Museums consist of two major collections under one roof: the DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Museum and the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum. Colonial Williamsburg describes these as two major museum collections whose galleries encompass furniture, paintings, silver, ceramics, sculpture, textiles, and many other forms of material expression (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026a). An introductory gallery serves as a portal to both collections, emphasizing the complementary relationship between them.

The pairing is significant. Decorative arts and folk art are sometimes treated as secondary categories when compared with canonical painting or sculpture. Yet this distinction becomes difficult to sustain when we consider how people actually lived. Most human beings throughout history did not spend their days standing before paintings in galleries. They sat on chairs, ate from plates, drank from cups, wore clothing, used tools, decorated their homes, exchanged gifts, and created objects for religious, domestic, and communal purposes. The material world was not an accessory to their lives. It was the environment through which their lives were experienced.

The DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Museum makes this point particularly visible. Its collections include furniture, ceramics, glass, silver, textiles, and many other objects associated with British and American life. Some objects were made locally; others arrived through international trade. Together, they reveal a society connected to a much larger Atlantic world. An imported ceramic object, for example, can tell a story about commerce as well as taste. A piece of furniture can reveal technological skill, access to materials, and social aspirations. A finely made object may tell us not only what someone liked but also what that person could afford.

The decorative arts therefore offer a different kind of historical evidence. Written documents often preserve the voices of people who possessed education, political authority, property, or institutional power. Objects can provide evidence about a wider range of human experiences. They can tell us how people arranged their homes, what they valued, what they needed, and what they chose to preserve. The historian therefore does not have to ask only, “What did people say?” The museum encourages another question: “What did people make, use, and live with?”

This question becomes even more interesting when we consider the relationship between Britain and early America. Colonial American society did not emerge in cultural isolation. It was shaped by migration, trade, religion, politics, technology, and continuing connections to Europe. At the same time, people living in North America gradually developed local practices and identities. The objects displayed in Williamsburg can therefore be read as evidence of both continuity and transformation. They show a society borrowing from established traditions while adapting those traditions to a new environment.

One exhibition, A Rich and Varied Culture: The Material World of the Early South, makes this cultural complexity especially visible. The exhibition examines objects created or imported into the Chesapeake, Carolina Lowcountry, and Backcountry between approximately 1670 and 1840. Its hundreds of examples include furniture, paintings, ceramics and glass, silver, jewelry, iron, clothing, architectural elements, and archaeological materials. Colonial Williamsburg presents these objects as evidence of the diverse cultural and ethnic traditions that contributed to the formation of an early southern material culture (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026b).

Such an exhibition complicates any simple picture of “colonial America.” The early South was not culturally uniform. Different populations brought different traditions, skills, beliefs, and aesthetic practices into contact with one another. Objects can reveal those encounters in ways that broad historical categories sometimes conceal. A museum object may be the result of several cultural worlds meeting: a material obtained through international trade, a design adapted locally, a technique learned across generations, or a decorative pattern transformed by a new community.

The Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum takes this investigation in another direction. Its subject is especially important because folk art invites us to reconsider who gets to be called an artist. The Smithsonian’s Archives of American Art notes that the definition of American folk art has never been easy to fix and that the category has changed significantly over time. Earlier twentieth-century understandings often emphasized artists without academic training, while later approaches broadened the field considerably (Smithsonian Institution, n.d.).

This history of definition is itself revealing. What one generation calls “art” another may call “craft,” “decoration,” “tradition,” or simply “something someone made.” Museums do not merely preserve objects; they also participate in deciding how those objects will be understood. To place an ordinary household object in a museum is to tell visitors that the object deserves attention. It says that the creativity embodied in that object is part of a larger human story.

The history of the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum illustrates this process of recognition. Colonial Williamsburg notes that Abby Aldrich Rockefeller began collecting folk art in the 1920s and eventually gave a collection of more than 400 objects to Colonial Williamsburg. Over subsequent decades, the collection grew to more than 4,000 objects dating from the eighteenth century to the present (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026c). The museum’s folk-art galleries include portraits, quilts, sculpture, musical instruments, toys, and weathervanes.

There is something profoundly democratic about this expansion of attention. A famous artist’s masterpiece may tell us much about artistic ambition, patronage, and cultural prestige. But an anonymous or little-known maker may tell us something different: how creativity operates when it is embedded in ordinary life. A person does not necessarily need to think of himself or herself as an “artist” in order to create something imaginative, meaningful, or beautiful.

A quilt, for instance, can be both practical and expressive. A toy can reveal how adults imagined childhood. A weather vane can combine utility, craftsmanship, humor, and local identity. A family portrait can preserve a relationship across generations. Such objects resist the assumption that art begins only when usefulness ends. They suggest instead that beauty and function have always been intertwined.

Portraiture offers another doorway into this world of memory. When we stand before an old portrait, we are confronted by a face that once belonged to a living human being. The person may have been wealthy or poor, famous or obscure, powerful or powerless. Yet the portrait creates an unusual form of temporal intimacy. Someone who lived centuries ago looks back at us.

The National Gallery of Art explains that portraiture has long served as an important record of American people and that portraits could communicate not only physical appearance but also qualities, accomplishments, social roles, and aspirations. Early portraiture was largely accessible to people who could afford it, while the growth of the economy eventually supported a broader market, including self-trained portraitists who served families interested in preserving their likenesses and lineage (National Gallery of Art, n.d.).

This helps explain why a portrait should not be viewed simply as an old photograph. A portrait is a negotiation between appearance and identity. Clothing, posture, setting, objects, facial expression, and scale all participate in the construction of a public or private self. The sitter is not simply being recorded; the sitter is presenting a version of himself or herself for the future.

That idea is remarkably contemporary. We now live in a world saturated with self-representation. Smartphones allow us to create thousands of photographs. Social media allows us to curate identities for audiences we may never meet. Generative AI can produce portraits that have never belonged to real people at all. Yet the fundamental human desire remains familiar: How do I want to be remembered?

The museum therefore becomes unexpectedly relevant to the digital age. The portrait painter of the eighteenth century and the social-media user of the twenty-first century inhabit radically different technological environments, but both participate in the human practice of constructing memory. The tools have changed. The underlying question has not. This is where the museums’ collections begin to speak to the age of artificial intelligence.

Generative AI has dramatically expanded the speed and scale at which images can be produced. A person with little formal artistic training can now describe an imagined scene and receive an image within seconds. AI systems can imitate historical styles, combine visual traditions, restore damaged images, generate architectural environments, and create entirely fictional people. In one sense, humanity has entered an extraordinary new age of visual abundance. But abundance creates a new problem: If images become nearly unlimited, what makes an image meaningful?

The Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg suggest one possible answer. Meaning does not come only from visual complexity. It comes from relationship: the relationship between an object and its maker, between an object and its user, between an object and its historical circumstances, and between an object and the people who encounter it later. A machine can generate an aesthetically impressive image, but the human significance of an image depends on context, intention, experience, and interpretation.

This does not mean that AI-generated art lacks value. Rather, it means that technical production and human meaning should not be confused. The history represented in Williamsburg reminds us that objects become culturally significant through networks of human relationships. A simple object can become extraordinary because of the life it has touched.

The historian Samuel J. M. M. Alberti has similarly argued that museum objects acquire meanings through the people and contexts they encounter as they move from manufacture and exchange into collecting and display. His analysis emphasizes that the “biography” of an object can illuminate broader social and cultural histories as well as the experience of museum visitors (Alberti, 2005).

This idea of the “biography of an object” is particularly useful in thinking about the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg. Imagine a ceramic vessel created generations ago. First, someone designed it. Someone else shaped and fired it. It may have been sold, transported, and purchased. It entered a household and became part of someone’s daily routine. Perhaps it was passed to another generation. Eventually it entered a collection and became a museum object. Its physical form may have remained relatively stable, but its meaning changed repeatedly.

The same could be said of a chair. Originally, it was designed for sitting. Later, it became an antique. Eventually, it became an object of scholarly research and museum interpretation. For today’s visitor, it may become a prompt for imagining the person who once sat upon it. The chair has acquired layers of meaning without changing its basic physical identity.

This is why museums matter in an age of digital information. Digital systems are exceptionally good at producing, copying, retrieving, and recombining information. Museums remind us that information is not the same as experience. To know that an object existed is different from standing before it. To read a description of an eighteenth-century chair is different from noticing the marks of its construction. To see a digital image of a portrait is different from encountering the physical scale, surface, frame, and presence of the original.

The distinction is increasingly important as artificial intelligence becomes capable of generating convincing representations of almost anything. When visual simulation becomes effortless, physical authenticity may acquire a renewed significance. The original object carries a history of contact. It was made by particular hands, existed in a particular world, and survived through time. Its material continuity is itself evidence.

Yet authenticity should not be romanticized as though every old object speaks for itself. Museums interpret. Curators select. Exhibitions organize. Labels provide narratives. Collections reflect histories of collecting, preservation, donation, institutional priorities, and changing scholarly understanding. The museum visitor is therefore not simply receiving the past but participating in an ongoing conversation about how the past should be understood.

This is one reason Colonial Williamsburg’s continuing research is important. The Foundation describes its work as involving historians, primary documents, maps, oral histories, census records, and scientific conservation, with researchers investigating not merely what happened but how and why (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026d). The museum is consequently not a frozen container of historical facts. It is a place where knowledge continues to be produced.

That characteristic makes the museum particularly valuable for education. A student can learn history by reading a textbook, but the museum introduces another form of inquiry. What can an object tell us? What can it not tell us? Who made it? Who used it? Who preserved it? What assumptions do we bring when we look at it? What voices are missing?

These questions cultivate a form of critical thinking that is increasingly important in the AI era. When an AI system generates an answer, students must learn to ask where the information came from, what evidence supports it, and what may be missing. When a museum presents an object, visitors should similarly learn to distinguish between the object itself and the interpretation surrounding it. Both experiences teach a deeper intellectual habit: look carefully, question responsibly, and interpret cautiously.

There is also a moral dimension to this practice. The history of early America includes extraordinary creativity and achievement, but it also includes colonialism, slavery, displacement, inequality, conflict, and exclusion. Objects of beauty do not erase these realities. Indeed, they can sometimes make them more visible. A luxurious object may raise questions about who had the resources to own it and whose labor made its production possible. A portrait may reveal social status while also reminding us whose faces were historically less likely to be preserved in portraiture.

A mature encounter with history therefore requires both appreciation and questioning. The purpose of a museum should not be to make the past comfortable. It should help us understand the complexity of human experience. Beauty and injustice can exist within the same historical world. Craftsmanship and inequality can coexist. Cultural creativity can flourish under circumstances that are morally complicated.

This complexity is particularly important when considering the American founding era. Williamsburg is associated with the political and intellectual development of the United States, but political ideals were never experienced equally by everyone. The objects in its museums can help visitors move beyond abstract political language and toward the material realities of everyday life. Who possessed property? Who worked in households? Who had access to education? Who could commission a portrait? Who created objects but remained unnamed? The museum cannot answer every question, but it can encourage us to ask better ones.

Perhaps that is the most important reason to walk slowly through the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg. A hurried visitor may see hundreds of objects. A reflective visitor may encounter several human beings. One object may become the story of a maker. Another may become the story of a family. A portrait may become a conversation across centuries. A piece of furniture may become evidence of global trade. A folk-art object may challenge our definition of who counts as an artist.

The museum therefore changes our relationship with time. Usually, we imagine time as something that moves in one direction: past, present, future. But museums create a more complicated experience. The past enters the present through objects, and the present gives those objects new meanings. We look backward, but our questions come from the world we inhabit today.

This is especially evident when we consider artificial intelligence. We are building systems that may eventually become part of the historical record themselves. Future generations may look back at today’s AI-generated images, digital archives, robotic systems, software agents, and virtual environments in much the same way we now look at eighteenth-century objects. They may ask what these technologies reveal about our values, fears, hopes, and assumptions.

What will our age leave behind? Perhaps it will not be the most technically sophisticated systems that tell future generations the most about us. It may be the ordinary things: a photograph, a child’s drawing, a handwritten note, a family video, a classroom project, a personal website, or an object designed to solve an everyday problem. The historical significance of an object cannot always be predicted at the moment of its creation.

This thought brings us back to the folk artists represented in Colonial Williamsburg. Many of them were not necessarily attempting to make history. They were making something meaningful for their own lives. Yet their creations survived, entered collections, and became evidence of a culture. Their work reminds us that we do not always know what future generations will value.

The same may be true of our own creative lives. In an age when AI can produce polished text and sophisticated images instantly, the temptation is to measure creativity by novelty or technical perfection. The museums suggest another standard: human significance. An imperfect object made with care may ultimately tell us more about a person than a technically flawless image produced without a meaningful relationship to human experience.

This does not diminish technology. On the contrary, it places technology within a larger human story. The printing press did not eliminate writing. Photography did not eliminate painting. Digital photography did not eliminate physical photographs. Generative AI will not necessarily eliminate human creativity. Each technological transformation changes the conditions under which people create, remember, and communicate. The challenge is to ensure that technology expands human imagination rather than replacing the human questions that give imagination meaning.

Leaving the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg, one may return to the historic streets with a different understanding of the buildings and objects around them. The past no longer appears merely as scenery. It becomes a collection of human decisions: what to make, what to preserve, what to value, what to remember, and what to forget.

A museum, then, is not simply a building that stores old things. It is an institution of memory. It connects material objects with human stories and allows the present to ask questions of the past. The Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg perform this function particularly well because they place fine art, decorative art, folk art, and everyday material culture into a common conversation.

Their deepest lesson may be surprisingly simple. Human beings have always created. We create because we need things, because we want beauty, because we wish to express ourselves, because we want to remember, and because we hope someone will remember us. The tools change from century to century, but the impulse remains.

Today, artificial intelligence gives humanity extraordinary new tools for creating images, words, music, and ideas. But the existence of powerful tools makes the question of purpose more important, not less. We should not ask only what AI can create. We should ask what human beings should choose to create, why those creations matter, and what values they will carry into the future.

The Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg quietly pose these questions without ever needing to state them directly. An old chair, a ceramic vessel, a quilt, a portrait, or a child’s toy can become a bridge between centuries. Looking at it, we discover that history is not only about people who are gone. It is also about ourselves—the people who have inherited their objects, interpreted their lives, and are now creating the material record that future generations will inherit.

Perhaps, therefore, the most meaningful question to carry out of the museum is not simply, “What did people create in the past?” It is this: What are we creating today, and what will our creations tell the future about who we were?

Walking back through Williamsburg, the brick paths seem familiar, yet somehow changed. The past has become less distant. It has become a mirror. In the paintings, furniture, ceramics, textiles, and folk-art objects of Colonial Williamsburg, we encounter people who lived before us, but we also encounter the enduring human desire to create meaning from life.

Technology may change the speed of creation. Artificial intelligence may transform the tools of imagination. But memory still requires human attention, and meaning still requires human interpretation. That may be the enduring wisdom of the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg: what we make becomes part of what we remember, and what we remember becomes part of who we are. +++

References

Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2005). Objects and the museum. Isis, 96(4), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1086/498593

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026a). Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg: Exhibitions. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026b). A rich and varied culture: The material world of the early South. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/a-rich-and-varied-culture-the-material-world-of-the-early-south/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026c). America’s folk art. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/americas-folk-art/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026d). History of Colonial Williamsburg. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/about/history-of-colonial-williamsburg/

National Gallery of Art. (n.d.). Faces of America: Portraits. https://www.nga.gov/educational-resources/uncovering-america/faces-america-portraits

Smithsonian Institution. (n.d.). American traditions: A taste for folk art. Archives of American Art. https://www.si.edu/spotlight/folk-art

Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg를 찾아서

예술과 기억, 그리고 인간의 상상력

초록

콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관은 단순히 아름다운 작품을 모아 놓은 공간 이상의 의미를 지닌다. 이곳은 예술, 물질문화, 기억, 그리고 인간의 상상력을 통해 역사 속으로 들어가는 독특한 경험을 제공한다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 역사적 공간에 자리한 이 미술관들은 회화, 장식미술, 민속미술, 초상화, 가구, 생활용품과 다양한 유물을 함께 보여 주면서 초기 미국 사회에서 살아간 사람들의 삶과 경험을 조명한다. 이러한 유물들을 단순히 과거를 설명하기 위한 시각적 자료로만 취급하지 않고, 인간의 선택, 관계, 열망, 노동, 사회적 정체성, 문화적 교류와 기억을 보여 주는 물질적 증거로 바라보도록 한다. Alberti(2005)가 지적하듯이, 박물관의 유물은 사물 자체만으로 의미를 갖는 것이 아니라 사물과 사람, 제도와 역사 사이의 관계 속에서 의미를 획득한다. 이러한 의미에서 박물관에 전시된 유물은 단순히 오래된 물건이 아니라 특정한 인간 세계를 증언하는 물질적 증인이 될 수 있다.

이 미술관들이 특히 중요한 이유는 서로 다른 형태의 예술적 표현과 사회적 경험을 한 공간에서 보여 주기 때문이다. 드위트 월리스 장식미술관(DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Museum)은 가구, 은제품, 도자기, 직물, 회화 및 다양한 생활 유물을 통해 장인정신, 상업, 취향과 사회생활의 변화가 어떻게 물질문화에 반영되었는지를 보여 준다. 애비 올드리치 록펠러 민속미술관(Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum)은 이러한 시각을 더욱 확장하여, 예술적 창의성이 반드시 전문적인 교육을 받은 예술가들에게만 한정된 것이 아니었음을 보여 준다. 민속미술은 일상생활 속에서 형성된 평범한 사람들의 상상력과 경험을 보존한다. 두 미술관은 함께 관람객으로 하여금 ‘순수미술’, ‘민속미술’, 그리고 일상적인 물질문화 사이의 경계를 다시 생각하게 한다.

이러한 경험은 생성형 인공지능의 시대에 더욱 특별한 의미를 갖는다. 오늘날 AI 시스템은 이미지를 만들어 내고 예술적 스타일을 모방하며 시각적으로 매력적인 결과물을 몇 초 만에 생성할 수 있다. 그러나 박물관은 예술작품의 의미가 단순히 그것이 어떻게 보이는가에만 존재하지 않는다는 사실을 일깨워 준다. 의미는 또한 하나의 유물이 어떤 인간적 상황 속에서 만들어지고, 사용되고, 보존되고, 기억되고, 해석되었는가를 통해 형성된다. 따라서 손으로 만든 의자, 초상화, 퀼트 또는 생활용품은 알고리즘이 생성한 이미지가 스스로 가질 수 없는 무엇인가를 전달할 수 있다. 그것은 시간과 물질 속에 새겨진 인간 경험의 흔적이다.

따라서 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관을 방문하는 것은 미국 미술사를 공부하는 것을 넘어, 무엇을 창조한다는 것이 무엇이며 무엇을 기억한다는 것이 무엇인지, 그리고 인간으로 살아간다는 것이 무엇인지를 성찰하는 기회가 된다. 이 미술관들은 역사가 단순히 날짜와 사건의 집합이 아니라는 사실을 보여 준다. 역사는 또한 사물, 이미지, 재료, 행위와 이야기 속에 보존된다. AI가 문화적 산물을 생산하는 과정에 점점 더 깊이 참여하는 시대에, 이 미술관의 소장품들은 우리에게 근본적인 질문을 던진다. 오늘날 우리는 무엇을 만들고 있으며, 미래 세대는 우리의 창조물을 통해 우리가 어떤 존재였다고 이해하게 될 것인가?

주제어: 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관; 미국 미술; 민속미술; 장식미술; 물질문화; 창의성; 기억; 해석; 보존; 인간의 상상력; 박물관; 생성형 인공지능

역사 속으로 걸어 들어가다 — 윌리엄스버그와 살아 있는 역사

역사를 읽는 장소가 있고, 역사를 보는 장소가 있으며, 드물게는 역사가 실제로 숨 쉬고 있는 듯한 장소가 있다. 버지니아의 윌리엄스버그는 바로 그런 곳이다. 벽돌길을 따라 걷고, 18세기의 건물과 정원, 작업장과 조용한 거리를 지나가다 보면 과거는 반드시 멀리 떨어진 어느 나라가 아니라는 사실을 깨닫게 된다. 과거는 사람들이 남겨 놓은 물건을 통해 재현되고, 해석되고, 질문받으며, 직접 경험될 수 있다. 그 경험의 중심에 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관(Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg)이 있다. 이곳에서 회화, 가구, 도자기, 직물, 은제품, 유리, 조각, 민속미술은 초기 미국의 역사를 친밀하고 손에 잡히는 인간의 이야기로 바꾸어 놓는다.

이 미술관이 특히 매력적인 이유는 예술을 일상생활과 분리된 것으로 생각하도록 요구하지 않는다는 데 있다. 이곳의 소장품은 순수미술과 장식미술, 전문 예술가의 작품과 민속미술, 아름다움을 위한 물건과 실용적인 물건을 함께 보여준다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 재단에 따르면 이곳의 소장품은 미국과 영국의 17~19세기 작품에서부터 현대에 이르는 미국 민속미술에 이르기까지 순수미술, 장식미술, 기계 관련 유물, 민속미술 등 7만 점이 넘는 자료로 구성되어 있다(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026a). 이 가운데 일부는 미술관에서 전시되고, 또 다른 일부는 역사적인 건물 내부를 꾸미는 데 사용되어 초기 버지니아 사람들이 실제로 어떻게 살았는지를 이해하도록 돕는다.

이러한 관점은 우리가 미술관의 물건을 바라보는 방식 자체를 바꾸어 놓는다. 의자는 더 이상 단순한 의자가 아니다. 은으로 만든 그릇은 단순히 아름다운 공예품이 아니다. 초상화 역시 오래전에 살았던 한 사람의 얼굴을 그린 그림에 그치지 않는다. 각각의 물건은 인간의 이야기 한 조각이 된다. 그 안에는 노동, 가족, 사회적 지위, 무역, 열망, 문화적 교류, 기억의 흔적이 남아 있다. 따라서 미술관은 단순히 미적 감상을 위한 장소가 아니다. 그것은 물질문화와 인간의 삶이 만나는 장소다.

이 경험은 특정 전시실에 들어가기 전부터 시작된다. 윌리엄스버그 자체가 미술관을 향한 일종의 서곡 역할을 한다. 복원되고 재현된 역사적 환경은 우리로 하여금 역사를 공간적으로 생각하게 한다. 우리는 과거를 날짜와 이름만으로 만나는 것이 아니라 규모와 질감, 거리와 건축, 움직임을 통해 경험한다. 좁은 길은 사람들이 어떻게 이동했는지를 상상하게 하고, 문 하나는 사적 생활과 공적 생활이 어떻게 만났는지를 생각하게 한다. 정원은 음식과 아름다움, 노동과 사회적 지위에 대한 당시의 생각을 보여줄 수 있다. 이러한 역사적 풍경 속에서 미술관은 또 하나의 해석 층위를 제공한다. 그 시대의 공간을 실제로 채웠던 물건들을 보다 가까이에서 관찰하고 그 개별적인 이야기를 탐구할 수 있게 해주는 것이다.

이 미술관은 한 지붕 아래 두 개의 중요한 컬렉션을 갖추고 있다. 하나는 드위트 월리스 장식미술관(DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Museum)이고, 다른 하나는 애비 올드리치 록펠러 민속미술관(Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum)이다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그는 이 두 미술관을 하나의 통합된 문화 공간으로 소개하며, 가구, 회화, 은제품, 도자기, 조각, 직물 등 다양한 형태의 물질적 표현을 보여준다(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026a). 두 컬렉션을 연결하는 공간은 서로 다른 두 영역의 상호보완적인 관계를 보여준다.

이러한 결합은 의미가 크다. 장식미술과 민속미술은 때때로 회화나 조각과 같은 전통적인 순수미술에 비해 부차적인 분야로 취급되기도 한다. 그러나 사람들이 실제로 어떻게 살았는지를 생각하면 이러한 구분은 유지하기 어렵다. 역사 속 대부분의 사람들은 하루를 미술관에서 그림 앞에 서서 보내지 않았다. 그들은 의자에 앉았고, 접시에 음식을 담았으며, 컵으로 음료를 마셨고, 옷을 입었으며, 도구를 사용하고 집을 꾸몄다. 선물을 주고받았으며, 종교적·가정적·공동체적 목적을 위해 물건을 만들었다. 물질적 세계는 그들의 삶에 부수적으로 붙어 있던 것이 아니었다. 그것은 삶을 경험하는 환경 자체였다.

드위트 월리스 장식미술관은 이러한 사실을 특히 선명하게 보여준다. 이곳에는 영국과 미국의 생활과 관련된 가구, 도자기, 유리, 은제품, 직물 등 다양한 물건이 소장되어 있다. 어떤 것은 현지에서 제작되었고, 어떤 것은 국제적인 무역을 통해 들어왔다. 이 물건들은 초기 미국 사회가 훨씬 더 넓은 대서양 세계와 연결되어 있었음을 보여준다. 예를 들어 수입된 도자기는 취향뿐 아니라 무역의 역사를 말해줄 수 있다. 가구 한 점은 기술적 숙련도와 재료에 대한 접근성, 사회적 열망을 보여줄 수 있다. 정교하게 만들어진 물건은 누군가가 무엇을 좋아했는지만이 아니라 무엇을 소유할 경제적 능력이 있었는지를 알려줄 수도 있다.

따라서 장식미술은 또 다른 종류의 역사적 증거를 제공한다. 문서 기록은 교육, 정치적 권력, 재산 또는 제도적 권위를 가진 사람들의 목소리를 상대적으로 많이 보존하는 경향이 있다. 반면 물건은 훨씬 더 다양한 인간 경험을 보여줄 수 있다. 사람들은 집을 어떻게 꾸몄는가? 무엇을 중요하게 생각했는가? 무엇을 필요로 했는가? 무엇을 보존하고 싶어 했는가? 역사가가 반드시 “사람들은 무엇을 말했는가?”만을 물을 필요는 없다. 미술관은 또 다른 질문을 던진다. “사람들은 무엇을 만들고, 무엇을 사용하며, 무엇과 함께 살아갔는가?” 이 질문은 영국과 초기 미국의 관계를 생각할 때 더욱 흥미로워진다. 식민지 미국 사회는 문화적으로 고립된 상태에서 탄생한 것이 아니었다. 이민, 무역, 종교, 정치, 기술, 그리고 유럽과의 지속적인 관계가 그 사회를 형성했다. 동시에 북아메리카에 살던 사람들은 점차 자신들만의 생활방식과 정체성을 발전시켰다. 따라서 윌리엄스버그의 물건들은 연속성과 변화의 증거로 읽을 수 있다. 사람들은 기존의 전통을 받아들이면서도 새로운 환경에 맞게 그것을 변형해 나갔다.

그러한 문화적 복합성을 잘 보여주는 전시 가운데 하나가 ‘풍부하고 다양한 문화: 초기 남부의 물질세계(A Rich and Varied Culture: The Material World of the Early South)’이다. 이 전시는 대략 1670년부터 1840년 사이 체서피크, 캐롤라이나 저지대, 내륙 지역에서 만들어지거나 수입된 물건들을 다룬다. 가구, 회화, 도자기와 유리, 은제품, 장신구, 철제품, 의복, 건축 요소, 고고학 자료 등 수백 점의 유물이 포함되어 있다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그는 이러한 물건들이 초기 남부의 물질문화를 형성하는 데 기여한 다양한 문화적·민족적 전통의 증거라고 설명한다(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026b).

이러한 전시는 “식민지 미국”이라는 단순한 이미지를 복잡하게 만든다. 초기 미국 남부는 문화적으로 획일적인 사회가 아니었다. 서로 다른 집단들이 각자의 전통과 기술, 신념과 미적 감각을 가져와 서로 만나게 되었다. 물건은 이러한 만남을 거시적인 역사적 범주보다 더 구체적으로 보여준다. 하나의 유물은 여러 문화적 세계가 만난 결과일 수 있다. 국제무역을 통해 얻은 재료, 현지에서 변형된 디자인, 여러 세대에 걸쳐 전해진 기술, 새로운 공동체 속에서 변형된 장식 양식 등이 하나의 물건에 함께 존재할 수 있다.

애비 올드리치 록펠러 민속미술관은 이러한 탐구를 또 다른 방향으로 확장한다. 민속미술은 누가 예술가라고 불릴 수 있는지를 다시 생각하게 만든다는 점에서 특히 중요하다. 스미스소니언 미국미술 아카이브는 미국 민속미술의 정의가 처음부터 명확하게 고정되어 있지 않았으며 시대에 따라 크게 변화해 왔다고 설명한다. 20세기 초의 이해는 정규 미술교육을 받지 않은 예술가를 강조하는 경우가 많았지만, 이후 민속미술의 범위는 상당히 확대되었다(Smithsonian Institution, n.d.).

이러한 정의의 역사는 그 자체로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 한 세대가 “예술”이라고 부르는 것을 다른 세대는 “공예”나 “장식”, “전통” 또는 단순히 “누군가가 만든 것”이라고 부를 수 있다. 미술관은 단지 물건을 보존하는 곳이 아니다. 그 물건을 어떻게 이해할 것인가를 결정하는 과정에도 참여한다. 평범한 생활용품 하나를 미술관에 전시하는 것은 그 물건이 우리의 관심을 받을 가치가 있다고 선언하는 행위다. 그리고 그 물건에 담긴 창의성 역시 더 큰 인간의 역사에 포함될 가치가 있다고 말하는 것이다.

애비 올드리치 록펠러 민속미술관의 역사는 이러한 인정의 과정을 잘 보여준다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그에 따르면 애비 올드리치 록펠러는 1920년대부터 민속미술을 수집하기 시작했으며, 결국 400점이 넘는 작품을 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그에 기증했다. 이후 수십 년 동안 컬렉션은 크게 성장하여 18세기부터 현재에 이르는 4,000점 이상의 작품으로 확대되었다(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026c). 이곳에는 초상화, 퀼트, 조각, 악기, 장난감, 풍향계 등 다양한 민속미술 작품이 전시되어 있다.

이러한 관심의 확대에는 깊은 민주적 의미가 있다. 유명 예술가의 걸작은 예술적 야망과 후원, 문화적 명성에 대해 많은 것을 이야기해줄 수 있다. 그러나 이름이 알려지지 않았거나 잘 알려지지 않은 제작자는 또 다른 이야기를 들려줄 수 있다. 바로 ‘일상생활 속에 스며든 창의성’이다. 어떤 사람이 자신을 “예술가”라고 생각하지 않았더라도 상상력이 풍부하고 의미 있으며 아름다운 것을 만들 수 있다.

예를 들어 퀼트는 실용적인 물건이면서 동시에 표현적인 작품일 수 있다. 장난감은 어른들이 어린 시절을 어떻게 상상했는지를 보여줄 수 있다. 풍향계는 기능과 장인정신, 유머와 지역적 정체성을 동시에 표현할 수 있다. 가족 초상화는 세대를 넘어 관계를 보존할 수 있다. 이러한 물건들은 유용성이 사라지는 순간부터 예술이 시작된다는 생각에 의문을 제기한다. 오히려 아름다움과 기능은 언제나 서로 얽혀 있었다고 말해준다.

초상화는 기억의 세계로 들어가는 또 하나의 문이다. 오래된 초상화 앞에 서면 우리는 한때 실제로 살아 있었던 인간의 얼굴과 마주하게 된다. 그 사람은 부유했을 수도 있고 가난했을 수도 있으며, 유명했을 수도 있고 이름이 알려지지 않았을 수도 있다. 권력자였을 수도 있고 그렇지 않았을 수도 있다. 그러나 초상화는 매우 특별한 시간적 친밀감을 만들어낸다. 수백 년 전에 살았던 사람이 우리를 바라보고 있는 것이다.

미국 국립미술관(National Gallery of Art)은 초상화가 오랫동안 미국인의 모습을 기록하는 중요한 역할을 해왔으며, 단순한 외모뿐 아니라 인물의 성격, 업적, 사회적 역할과 열망까지 전달할 수 있었다고 설명한다. 초기의 초상화는 주로 이를 감당할 경제력이 있는 사람들에게 가능했지만, 경제가 성장하면서 초상화 시장이 확대되었고, 정규 교육을 받지 않은 화가들도 가족의 모습과 가계를 보존하려는 사람들을 위해 활동하게 되었다(National Gallery of Art, n.d.).

이러한 사실은 초상화를 단순히 오래된 사진처럼 보아서는 안 되는 이유를 설명해준다. 초상화는 외모와 정체성 사이의 협상이다. 의복, 자세, 배경, 소품, 표정, 화면의 크기까지 모든 요소가 공적 또는 사적인 자아를 구성하는 데 참여한다. 인물은 단순히 기록되는 것이 아니라 미래를 향해 자신의 모습을 제시하고 있는 것이다.

이러한 생각은 놀랍게도 오늘날에도 매우 현대적이다. 우리는 자기표현의 이미지가 넘쳐나는 시대에 살고 있다. 스마트폰으로 수천 장의 사진을 만들 수 있고, 소셜미디어를 통해 한 번도 만나지 못할 사람들을 대상으로 자신의 정체성을 구성할 수 있다. 생성형 AI는 실제로 존재하지 않았던 사람의 초상까지 만들어낼 수 있다. 그러나 근본적인 인간의 욕구는 여전히 같다. “나는 어떻게 기억되고 싶은가?”

그런 의미에서 미술관은 디지털 시대와 뜻밖의 연결점을 갖는다. 18세기의 초상화가와 21세기의 소셜미디어 이용자는 전혀 다른 기술 환경에 살고 있지만, 둘 다 기억을 구성하는 인간의 행위에 참여한다. 도구는 달라졌지만 근본적인 질문은 변하지 않았다. 바로 이 지점에서 미술관의 소장품은 인공지능 시대와 대화를 시작한다.

생성형 AI는 이미지를 만들어내는 속도와 규모를 극적으로 확대했다. 전문적인 미술교육을 거의 받지 않은 사람도 상상한 장면을 글로 설명하고 몇 초 만에 이미지를 얻을 수 있다. AI 시스템은 역사적 화풍을 모방하고, 서로 다른 시각적 전통을 결합하며, 손상된 이미지를 복원하고, 건축적 공간을 생성하고, 실제로 존재하지 않는 인물의 초상을 만들어낼 수 있다. 한편으로 인류는 놀라운 시각적 풍요의 시대에 들어섰다. 그러나 풍요는 새로운 문제를 만든다.

이미지가 거의 무한히 만들어질 수 있다면, 무엇이 하나의 이미지를 의미 있게 만드는가?

콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 미술관은 이에 대한 하나의 답을 제시하는 듯하다. 의미는 단순히 시각적 복잡성에서 나오지 않는다. 의미는 관계에서 나온다. 제작자와 물건의 관계, 사용자와 물건의 관계, 물건과 그것이 만들어진 역사적 상황의 관계, 그리고 훗날 그 물건을 바라보는 사람과의 관계가 중요하다. 기계는 미적으로 인상적인 이미지를 만들어낼 수 있지만, 그 이미지가 인간에게 갖는 의미는 맥락과 의도, 경험과 해석에 달려 있다.

그렇다고 AI가 만든 예술이 가치가 없다는 뜻은 아니다. 오히려 기술적 생산과 인간적 의미를 서로 혼동하지 말아야 한다는 뜻이다. 윌리엄스버그의 역사가 보여주는 것은 물건이 인간관계의 네트워크 속에서 문화적 의미를 갖게 된다는 사실이다. 단순한 물건도 그것이 닿았던 삶 때문에 특별한 것이 될 수 있다.

박물관의 역사와 이론을 연구한 사무엘 J. M. M. 앨버티는 박물관의 물건이 제작과 교환에서 수집과 전시에 이르는 과정에서 만나는 사람들과 맥락을 통해 새로운 의미를 획득한다고 설명한다. 그는 물건의 이른바 ‘전기(biography)’를 추적하는 것이 사회와 문화의 역사뿐 아니라 박물관 관람자의 경험까지 이해하는 데 도움이 된다고 주장한다(Alberti, 2005).

이러한 ‘물건의 전기’라는 개념은 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 미술관을 이해하는 데 매우 유용하다. 수백 년 전에 만들어진 도자기 하나를 상상해 보자. 누군가 그것을 디자인했고, 다른 누군가가 빚고 구웠다. 그것은 판매되고 운반되고 구매되었을 것이다. 어느 가정에 들어가 누군가의 일상생활의 일부가 되었을 것이다. 다음 세대로 전달되었을 수도 있다. 그리고 결국 수집품이 되어 미술관의 유물이 되었을 것이다. 물리적인 형태는 거의 그대로였을지 모르지만, 그것이 갖는 의미는 계속해서 변화했다.

의자도 마찬가지다. 처음에는 앉기 위해 만들어졌다. 나중에는 골동품이 되었다. 결국에는 학술 연구와 박물관 해석의 대상이 되었다. 오늘날의 관람객에게는 그 의자에 한때 앉았던 사람을 상상하게 만드는 하나의 계기가 될 수 있다. 의자는 기본적인 물리적 형태를 유지하면서도 여러 층의 의미를 획득한 것이다.

이것이 디지털 정보의 시대에 박물관이 중요한 이유다. 디지털 시스템은 정보를 생산하고 복사하고 검색하고 재조합하는 데 탁월하다. 그러나 미술관은 정보와 경험이 동일하지 않다는 사실을 상기시킨다. 어떤 물건이 존재했다는 사실을 아는 것과 그 물건 앞에 직접 서는 것은 다르다. 18세기의 의자에 대한 설명을 읽는 것과 그 의자의 제작 흔적을 직접 바라보는 것도 다르다. 초상화의 디지털 이미지를 보는 것과 실제 작품의 크기와 표면, 액자와 물질적 존재감을 경험하는 것도 다르다.

이 차이는 인공지능이 거의 모든 것을 설득력 있게 재현할 수 있게 되면서 더욱 중요해지고 있다. 시각적 시뮬레이션이 너무나 쉬워지면 물리적 진품성은 오히려 새로운 의미를 갖게 될 수 있다. 원본은 접촉의 역사를 갖고 있다. 특정한 손에 의해 만들어졌고, 특정한 세계에 존재했으며, 시간을 견디며 살아남았다. 그 물질적 연속성 자체가 하나의 증거가 된다.

그러나 진품성을 낭만적으로만 생각해서는 안 된다. 오래된 모든 물건이 스스로 역사를 말해주는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 미술관은 해석한다. 큐레이터는 선택한다. 전시는 이야기를 구성한다. 전시 설명은 특정한 관점을 제공한다. 소장품은 수집, 보존, 기증, 기관의 우선순위, 학문적 관점의 변화라는 역사를 반영한다. 따라서 관람객은 과거를 단순히 전달받는 것이 아니라, 과거를 어떻게 이해해야 하는지를 둘러싼 계속되는 대화에 참여한다.

이 점에서 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 지속적인 연구는 중요하다. 재단은 역사학자들이 일차사료, 지도, 구술사, 인구조사 자료, 과학적 보존 연구 등을 활용하여 단순히 “무슨 일이 일어났는가”뿐 아니라 “어떻게, 그리고 왜 일어났는가”를 연구한다고 설명한다(Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2026d). 따라서 미술관은 고정된 역사적 사실을 보관하는 공간이 아니다. 그곳은 지식이 계속해서 생산되는 장소다.

이러한 특성은 미술관을 교육적으로도 매우 가치 있는 공간으로 만든다. 학생은 교과서를 통해 역사를 배울 수 있지만, 미술관에서는 또 다른 형태의 탐구를 경험한다. 이 물건은 무엇을 말해줄 수 있는가? 무엇을 말해줄 수 없는가? 누가 만들었는가? 누가 사용했는가? 누가 보존했는가? 우리는 어떤 선입견을 가지고 그것을 바라보는가? 어떤 목소리가 빠져 있는가?

이러한 질문은 AI 시대에 더욱 중요한 비판적 사고 능력을 길러준다. AI가 답변을 생성할 때 학생은 정보가 어디에서 왔는지, 어떤 증거가 그것을 뒷받침하는지, 무엇이 빠져 있을 수 있는지를 물어야 한다. 미술관에서 유물을 볼 때도 마찬가지다. 유물 그 자체와 그 유물에 부여된 해석을 구분해야 한다. 두 경험 모두 더 깊은 지적 습관을 가르쳐 준다.

주의 깊게 보고, 책임 있게 질문하며, 신중하게 해석하는 것

여기에는 윤리적인 차원도 있다. 초기 미국의 역사는 놀라운 창의성과 성취를 포함하지만, 동시에 식민주의, 노예제도, 강제적 이주, 불평등, 갈등과 배제의 역사이기도 하다. 아름다운 물건이 이러한 현실을 지워주지는 않는다. 오히려 때로는 그러한 현실을 더 선명하게 드러낸다. 호화로운 물건은 누가 그것을 소유할 경제적 능력을 가졌는지, 누군가의 노동이 그 물건을 만드는 데 어떤 역할을 했는지를 질문하게 한다. 초상화는 사회적 지위를 보여주는 동시에 역사적으로 누구의 얼굴이 보존될 가능성이 더 높았는지를 생각하게 한다.

따라서 성숙한 역사 경험은 감탄과 질문을 동시에 요구한다. 미술관의 목적은 과거를 편안하게 만드는 것이 아니다. 인간 경험의 복잡성을 이해하도록 돕는 것이다. 아름다움과 불의는 같은 역사적 세계 안에 존재할 수 있다. 장인정신과 불평등도 공존할 수 있다. 문화적 창의성은 도덕적으로 복잡한 상황 속에서도 꽃필 수 있다.

이러한 복잡성은 미국 건국 시대를 생각할 때 특히 중요하다. 윌리엄스버그는 미국의 정치적·지적 발전과 관련된 장소이지만, 정치적 이상이 모든 사람에게 동일하게 경험된 것은 아니었다. 미술관의 물건들은 추상적인 정치적 언어를 넘어 일상의 물질적 현실로 시선을 이동시킬 수 있다. 누가 재산을 소유했는가? 누가 가정에서 일했는가? 누가 교육을 받을 수 있었는가? 누가 초상화를 주문할 수 있었는가? 누가 물건을 만들었지만 이름을 남기지 못했는가?

미술관이 모든 질문에 답할 수 있는 것은 아니다. 그러나 더 좋은 질문을 던지도록 만들 수는 있다. 어쩌면 이것이 우리가 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관을 천천히 걸어야 하는 가장 중요한 이유일 것이다. 서둘러 지나가는 관람객은 수백 개의 물건을 볼 수 있다. 그러나 천천히 바라보는 관람객은 몇 명의 인간을 만날 수 있다. 하나의 물건은 제작자의 이야기가 되고, 또 다른 물건은 한 가족의 이야기가 된다. 초상화는 수 세기를 뛰어넘는 대화가 되고, 가구는 세계무역의 증거가 되며, 민속미술은 누가 예술가인가라는 우리의 정의에 질문을 던진다.

미술관은 우리의 시간 감각도 바꾼다. 우리는 보통 시간을 과거, 현재, 미래라는 한 방향의 흐름으로 생각한다. 그러나 미술관에서는 시간이 더욱 복잡해진다. 과거는 물건을 통해 현재로 들어오고, 현재는 그 물건에 새로운 의미를 부여한다. 우리는 과거를 바라보지만, 우리가 던지는 질문은 현재의 세계에서 나온다.

이것은 인공지능을 생각할 때 특히 분명해진다. 우리는 앞으로 역사적 기록의 일부가 될 시스템을 만들고 있다. 미래 세대는 오늘날의 AI가 생성한 이미지, 디지털 아카이브, 로봇 시스템, 소프트웨어 에이전트, 가상환경을 우리가 지금 18세기의 물건을 바라보는 것과 비슷한 방식으로 바라볼 수도 있다. 그들은 이러한 기술이 당시 사람들의 가치와 두려움, 희망과 가정을 무엇으로 보여주는지 물을 것이다.

우리 시대는 무엇을 남길 것인가?

어쩌면 미래 세대에게 우리 시대를 가장 잘 설명해주는 것은 가장 정교한 기술 시스템이 아닐지도 모른다. 사진 한 장, 어린이의 그림, 손으로 쓴 메모, 가족 영상, 교실 프로젝트, 개인 웹사이트, 일상의 문제를 해결하기 위해 만들어진 작은 물건일 수도 있다. 어떤 물건의 역사적 중요성은 그것이 만들어지는 순간에는 예측할 수 없다.

이 생각은 다시 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 민속미술가들에게 돌아가게 한다. 많은 이들은 자신이 역사를 만들고 있다고 생각하지 않았을 것이다. 그들은 단지 자신의 삶에 의미 있는 것을 만들었다. 그러나 그들의 작품은 살아남아 수집품이 되었고, 하나의 문화에 대한 증거가 되었다. 그들의 작품은 미래 세대가 무엇을 중요하게 생각할지 우리가 항상 알 수 있는 것은 아니라는 사실을 일깨워준다.

우리의 창작 생활도 마찬가지일 것이다. AI가 세련된 글과 정교한 이미지를 즉시 만들어낼 수 있는 시대에는 창의성을 새로움이나 기술적 완성도로 평가하려는 유혹이 있다. 그러나 미술관은 또 다른 기준을 제시한다.

인간적 의미

정성을 다해 만든 불완전한 물건이 인간의 경험과 아무런 관계 없이 만들어진 기술적으로 완벽한 이미지보다 훗날 한 사람에 대해 더 많은 것을 말해줄 수도 있다. 이것은 기술의 가치를 낮추는 것이 아니다. 오히려 기술을 더 큰 인간의 역사 안에 위치시키는 것이다. 인쇄술이 글쓰기를 없애지 않았고, 사진이 회화를 없애지 않았으며, 디지털 사진이 물리적인 사진을 없애지 않았다. 생성형 AI 역시 인간의 창의성을 반드시 없애지는 않을 것이다. 각각의 기술적 변화는 사람들이 창작하고, 기억하고, 소통하는 조건을 변화시킨다. 중요한 것은 기술이 인간의 상상력을 확장하도록 하는 것이다. 인간의 상상력에 의미를 부여하는 질문까지 기술이 대신하게 해서는 안 된다.

콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관을 떠나 다시 역사적인 거리를 걸으면 주변의 건물과 물건이 조금 다르게 보이기 시작한다. 과거는 더 이상 단순한 풍경이 아니다. 그것은 인간의 선택이 모여 만들어진 세계가 된다. 무엇을 만들 것인가, 무엇을 보존할 것인가, 무엇을 가치 있게 여길 것인가, 무엇을 기억할 것인가, 그리고 무엇을 잊을 것인가에 대한 선택들이다.

따라서 미술관은 단순히 오래된 물건을 보관하는 건물이 아니다. 그것은 기억의 기관이다. 물질적 유물과 인간의 이야기를 연결하고, 현재가 과거에 질문할 수 있도록 한다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관은 순수미술, 장식미술, 민속미술, 일상생활의 물질문화를 하나의 대화 속에 놓음으로써 이러한 역할을 특별하게 수행한다.

그곳이 전하는 가장 깊은 메시지는 의외로 단순할지도 모른다. 인간은 언제나 무언가를 만들어 왔다. 필요한 것을 만들었고, 아름다운 것을 만들었으며, 자신을 표현하기 위해 만들었고, 기억하기 위해 만들었다. 그리고 누군가가 자신을 기억해주기를 바라며 만들었다. 시대에 따라 도구는 달라졌지만 이러한 충동은 변하지 않았다.

오늘날 인공지능은 인간에게 이미지와 글, 음악과 아이디어를 만들어낼 수 있는 놀라운 새로운 도구를 제공한다. 그러나 강력한 도구가 등장할수록 목적에 대한 질문은 더욱 중요해진다. 우리는 AI가 무엇을 만들 수 있는지만 물어서는 안 된다. 인간이 무엇을 만들기로 선택해야 하는가, 그것은 왜 중요한가, 그리고 그것이 미래에 어떤 가치를 전달할 것인가를 물어야 한다.

콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관은 이러한 질문을 직접 말하지 않으면서도 조용히 우리에게 던진다. 오래된 의자 하나, 도자기 하나, 퀼트 한 점, 초상화 한 점, 어린이의 장난감 하나가 수 세기를 연결하는 다리가 될 수 있다. 그것을 바라보면서 우리는 역사가 단순히 사라진 사람들의 이야기가 아니라는 것을 발견한다. 역사는 그들의 물건을 물려받고, 그들의 삶을 해석하며, 이제 미래 세대가 물려받을 새로운 기록을 만들어가고 있는 우리 자신의 이야기이기도 하다.

그러므로 미술관을 나서며 마음에 간직할 가장 의미 있는 질문은 단순히 이것이 아닐 것이다. “과거의 사람들은 무엇을 만들었는가?” 오히려 다음과 같은 질문이어야 한다. “우리는 오늘 무엇을 만들고 있으며, 우리의 창작물은 미래에 우리 시대의 인간을 어떻게 이야기하게 될 것인가?”

다시 윌리엄스버그의 거리를 걸으면 벽돌길은 익숙하면서도 조금 달라 보인다. 과거는 더 이상 멀리 있는 것이 아니다. 그것은 거울이 된다. 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그의 회화와 가구, 도자기와 직물, 민속미술 속에서 우리는 우리보다 먼저 살았던 사람들을 만난다. 동시에 삶으로부터 의미를 만들어내려는 인간의 변하지 않는 욕망도 만난다.

기술은 창작의 속도를 바꿀 수 있다. 인공지능은 상상력의 도구를 바꿀 수 있다. 그러나 기억에는 여전히 인간의 관심이 필요하고, 의미에는 여전히 인간의 해석이 필요하다. 어쩌면 이것이 콜로니얼 윌리엄스버그 미술관이 우리에게 전하는 오래된 동시에 새로운 지혜일 것이다. 우리가 만드는 것은 우리가 기억하는 것의 일부가 되고, 우리가 기억하는 것은 결국 우리가 누구인지를 만드는 일부가 된다. +++

참고문헌

Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2005). Objects and the museum. Isis, 96(4), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1086/498593

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026a). Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg: Exhibitions. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026b). A rich and varied culture: The material world of the early South. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/a-rich-and-varied-culture-the-material-world-of-the-early-south/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026c). America’s folk art. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/historic-area/art-museums-of-colonial-williamsburg/exhibitions/americas-folk-art/

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (2026d). History of Colonial Williamsburg. https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/about/history-of-colonial-williamsburg/

National Gallery of Art. (n.d.). Faces of America: Portraits. https://www.nga.gov/educational-resources/uncovering-america/faces-america-portraits

Smithsonian Institution. (n.d.). American traditions: A taste for folk art. Archives of American Art. https://www.si.edu/spotlight/folk-art

2026년 10월 1일

{솔티}

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor in Chief) — Regent University

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

© K-GSP (K-Global Scholars and Professionals) Forum. All rights reserved. 2026.

Suggested Citation:

Choi, Y. B. (2026, October 1. Discovering the Art Museums of Colonial Williamsburg: Art, Memory, and the Human Imagination. K-GSP.

Executive Summary

When a university receives a report of sexual harassment, it owes two duties at once: fairness to the person accused, and protection for the students, staff, and whistleblowers who speak up in good faith. This article draws on three sources: the author’s direct observation at an American university’s overseas campus, an anonymized 2024 Title IX report from that campus, and the current Cornell University case (2026). Together they show why evidence must be preserved early, investigations must be independent, and retaliation must be prevented. An allegation is not a finding. It is never a reason for silence.

Keywords: title ix, sexual harassment, whistleblowing, transnational higher education, korean diaspora

1. The Week Nobody Wanted to Talk About It

The concern did not arrive as a formal complaint. It surfaced in conversations among members of a cross-border university community, where accounts of blurred professional boundaries raised a difficult question: when students or staff fear that speaking may affect their academic or professional future, who can they safely turn to? The specific allegations require fair, confidential, and independent investigation. But the wider institutional responsibility is already clear: every university needs reporting procedures that protect people before silence becomes the safer choice.

I have watched this pattern up close at an American university’s overseas campus. A concern rarely arrives as a formal complaint. It comes as a hesitant message late at night, a screenshot passed to a trusted professor, or a remark in a hallway that something happened and others may know more. What the institution does in the next few days often matters more than anything it says afterward.

Two mistakes are tempting. One is to treat the report as proof. The other is to treat it as noise. Both fail. An allegation of sexual harassment is not a finding of misconduct and should never be written or repeated as one. A serious allegation still calls for a prompt, impartial, and documented response: preserving records, checking for immediate safety risks, explaining reporting options, protecting confidentiality, reaching out to possible witnesses, and guarding against retaliation.

This matters to the Korean diaspora in a particular way. Many of us teach, advise, and lead in American universities and their overseas or satellite partnerships. We mentor international students who may fear that speaking up could cost them a visa, a recommendation, or a career. Some of us were trained in academic cultures where seniority carries great weight and open conflict is avoided. Those experiences give us reason to ask whether our campuses make it safe to report, and whether we respond well when someone trusts us with a concern.

2. What the Record Shows, and What a Responsible Response Requires

In 2024, several self-described whistleblowers filed a Title IX report with the U.S. home institution about its overseas campus. The report asked the university to investigate allegations involving a senior administrator and to protect witnesses’ identities. It described accounts from three anonymized former students or graduates. One described alleged pursuit by the administrator and raised concerns about inappropriate relationships with students and staff. A second alleged that the administrator had a sexual relationship with a former student. A third described an after-hours social invitation to students, which the students reportedly declined.

The report presented these accounts as a possible pattern. They remain allegations that require fair verification, not established facts. The materials available for this article contain no final investigative finding and no response from the person accused. Several accounts may justify a closer look, but they do not remove the need for authentication, context, corroboration, notice, and a genuine chance for the accused to respond.

Figure 1

Illustration of an Anonymized Workplace Sexual-Harassment Report

Note. This image is illustrative only. It does not depict an actual person, incident, reporting party, institution, or accused individual.

The supporting materials included chat screenshots and summaries of conversations. These can be valuable leads, especially when reporting parties fear exposure. But screenshots do not prove themselves. A fair investigation must establish their origin, completeness, dates, participants, and metadata, and test how they fit with other evidence. It must also separate firsthand accounts from secondhand reports, rumor, and later interpretation.

2.1 Preserve the Evidence Before the Story Hardens

Evidence does not wait. Messages are deleted, phones replaced, accounts closed, witnesses scattered, and memories reshaped by later conversations. On an overseas or satellite campus, the clock runs faster: students graduate and leave the country, contracts end, and local and home-campus records sit in different systems.

I observed that concerns raised on the satellite or overseas campus did not always appear to move through a clear, documented channel to the U.S. home institution. Information often seemed to remain within local conversations and informal exchanges, leaving uncertainty about who had received a report, what record existed, and whether follow-up would occur.

At a minimum, an institution should preserve:

• original files, screenshots, messages, photographs, and metadata from reporting parties;

• relevant institutional email, calendars, travel and visitor records, reporting-channel logs, and employment records;

• a record of when the report arrived, who was told, what interim steps were taken, and who held decision-making authority;

• confidential witness contact information, stored securely on a need-to-know basis;

• written instructions prohibiting retaliation, intimidation, evidence destruction, and unauthorized disclosure.

None of these steps presumes misconduct. They protect the institution’s ability to decide fairly whether misconduct occurred.

Original Link: New Yorker(Oct. 02, 2026), https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-the-cornell-seven-rape-case-became-a-national-scandal

The Cornell case shows how early evidence decisions can echo for years. Reuters reported that a former Cornell student, using the pseudonym Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit in mid-September 2026 alleging that fraternity members gave her alcohol and drugs and sexually assaulted her in October 2024 (Ax, 2026). The accused men have denied wrongdoing, and the allegations remain unresolved. Reuters also reported that a police transcript recorded her saying she was certain she had been raped, a statement that did not appear in the sworn statement sent to prosecutors (Ax, 2026). According to NPR, New York’s governor then appointed the state attorney general as special prosecutor after criticizing how campus police and the local prosecutor had handled the case, and Cornell committed to an outside review of its own handling (Diaz & Mann, 2026). None of this establishes the truth of the allegations. It shows what happens when confidence in an early process breaks down.

2.2 Independence Has to Be Real

A university should never assign allegations against a senior administrator to an investigator who reports to that person, depends on that person professionally, or could reasonably be seen as unable to act freely. On an overseas or satellite campus, this risk is sharper. Governance is often shared between a U.S. home institution and a local partner, and local management authority, contracts, funding, and reputation overlap. When everyone in the reporting chain answers, directly or indirectly, to the same few leaders, a nominally independent review can be independent in name only.

In meetings and routine campus exchanges, I observed that questions involving student welfare, personnel concerns, or institutional policy often moved through a small number of senior offices. It was not always clear to faculty and staff where authority for review, escalation, or final decisions rested once a concern moved beyond the local campus.

A credible process for a U.S. university operating an overseas or satellite campus should include:

• an investigator outside the local senior-administration reporting line;

• a written conflict-of-interest assessment for every decision-maker;

• clear notice to reporting parties about supportive measures, confidentiality limits, and reporting options;

• secure procedures for interviews, evidence, and witness communication;

• a reasoned written outcome that distinguishes substantiated findings, unsubstantiated allegations, insufficient evidence, and questions the record cannot resolve;

• documentation of which institutional body held authority at each stage.

This protects the accused as well. A sound procedure keeps decisions from resting on rumor, informal pressure, or campus politics. Independence protects reporting parties, and it protects the legitimacy of the outcome.

2.3 Protecting Whistleblowers Protects Students

A reporting system fails when people must choose between raising a serious concern and protecting their education, livelihood, immigration status, reputation, or safety. For international students and early-career scholars from immigrant communities, including many Korean students and colleagues, that choice can feel especially heavy.

The record behind this article includes a letter from a national faculty organization about the suspension of a tenured faculty member at the same overseas campus. The faculty member described the suspension as retaliation for whistleblowing. The organization did not decide whether retaliation had occurred. It stressed that suspension is a severe sanction and urged the university to follow academic due-process standards, including a proper hearing and a stated justification for any suspension before a hearing.

Whether an employment action is linked to whistleblowing must be examined, not assumed. Useful questions include:

• Did decision-makers know about the reports?

• What reasons were given, and were they applied consistently to similar cases?

• Was the action unusually fast, severe, or procedurally irregular?

• Did internal communications discuss the faculty member’s reporting?

• Were records preserved and real procedural protections provided?

An institution cannot credibly encourage reporting while treating the person who reports as the main risk to manage.

Figure 2

The Stairs of Accountability

Note. This figure illustrates the steps to seek accountability and support, beginning with a satellite or oversea campus offices and extending, when needed, to the U.S. headquarters (HQ), faculty advocacy groups, public agencies, media outlets, and legal channels. The stairs represent a personal reporting journey rather than a required sequence, and not every step necessarily occurred in the order shown or resulted in a particular outcome. “HQ” refers to the U.S. home institution or central administration. Names and identifying details have been omitted to protect privacy.

3. The Test Every Campus Faces

The lesson from Cornell is not that every campus allegation becomes a criminal case, or that public attention proves misconduct. The lesson is that an institution’s response will itself be judged. A university can support complainants, preserve evidence, notify proper authorities, run a fair process, respect due process, and prevent retaliation, all at once. None of these duties cancels the others.

For the overseas or satellite campus, the public-interest question is simple: after the 2024 Title IX report, what did the university do to preserve evidence, assess risk, protect witnesses, ensure independence, and communicate an appropriate outcome? A university need not disclose confidential records to answer that. It should be able to show that a working system exists.

The available materials support only a careful conclusion. Former students and whistleblowers submitted allegations and asked for review. The submission included summaries and screenshots that still need authentication. A faculty organization separately raised due-process concerns about a suspension. The materials do not establish that harassment occurred, that the institution failed to investigate, that retaliation took place, or that anyone is legally liable.

Uncertainty is not a reason to do nothing. It is the reason to preserve records, investigate independently, protect those who report, and explain decisions in a way that earns trust. What I observed on that campus taught me that silence rarely announces itself. It settles in quietly, one unanswered message at a time. For those of us in the Korean diaspora who teach and lead on these campuses, the work begins close to home: we can be the colleague a student is not afraid to tell.

References

Ax, J. (2026, October 2). Explainer: What we know about the Cornell University rape investigation. Reuters.

Diaz, J., & Mann, B. (2026, October 1). NY Attorney General Letitia James to oversee inquiry into Cornell rape case. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/10/01/nx-s1-5987703/cornell-fraternity-rape-case-updates

About the Author

Prof. Dr. Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi (Managing Editor)

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD is Editor-in-Coordination of K-GSP Forum (contact: jeonghwan.choi at gmail.com). With over 25 years of industry and consulting experience, he specializes in leadership development, human resource management, organizational behavior, and social entrepreneurship. His research focuses on workforce resilience, organizational health, and self-directed leadership — bridging rigorous scholarship with practical insight to cultivate leaders who create meaningful, sustainable, and humane organizations.

Suggested Citation

Choi, J. (2026, October 3). Silence is not neutral: What the Cornell case teaches about reports, whistleblowers, and campus accountability. K-GSP Forum.

Original Article:

Choi(2026) Silence Is Not Neutral Kgsp V2

2.25MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

한글요약

침묵은 중립이 아니다: 코넬 사건이 일깨우는 신고, 내부고발, 그리고 캠퍼스의 책임

대학이 성희롱 신고를 받았다고 해서 곧바로 사실이 확정되는 것은 아닙니다. 하지만 구체적이고 무거운 신고를 소문이나 개인 갈등으로 덮어서도 안 됩니다. 대학은 자료를 보존하고, 관련된 사람들의 안전을 살피고, 독립적인 절차로 사실을 확인해야 합니다.

이 글은 필자가 미국 대학의 해외 캠퍼스에서 직접 보고 겪은 경험, 그 캠퍼스와 관련해 2024년에 제기된 Title IX 신고, 그리고 최근 코넬대학교 사건을 함께 살펴봅니다. 신고에는 졸업생과 제보자들의 주장, 대화 캡처와 증언 요약이 담겨 있었습니다.

코넬 사건은 초기 대응과 증거 보존이 왜 중요한지 보여 줍니다. 보도에 따르면 뉴욕 주지사는 처음 수사가 부실했다고 비판하며 주 법무장관을 특별검사로 임명했고, 코넬은 외부 검토를 받겠다고 밝혔습니다. 분교 (Satelite campus)나 해외 캠퍼스 (Overseas campus) 는 지배구조와 권한이 얽혀 있어 독립적인 조사가 더욱 어렵고, 그만큼 더 중요합니다.

한인 디아스포라 학자에게 이 문제는 남의 일이 아닙니다. 비자나 추천서, 진로를 걱정하는 학생들이 안심하고 말할 수 있어야 제도가 작동합니다. 캠퍼스는 불편한 목소리가 사라질 때가 아니라, 누구나 목소리를 잃지 않고 말할 수 있을 때 더 안전해집니다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Executive Summary

Many K-GSP members carry well-formed ideas that never reach readers, often because starting feels harder than it should. This announcement invites members to write for the Expert Opinion column and introduces the K-GSP Forum Original Article Template and its companion guide. It explains what the column publishes, walks through each template section, and answers common worries about time, length, sources, and AI use. The takeaway is simple: one clear idea is enough to begin.

Keywords: expert opinion, k-gsp forum, substack template, contributor guide, diaspora scholarship

1. The Idea You Mentioned Over Coffee

Most of us have had this moment. Over coffee, after a seminar, or in a long email thread, a colleague says something sharp about their field, and someone replies, “You should write that down.” Then the semester moves on, and the idea stays in the conversation where it started.

The K-GSP Forum exists to catch those ideas. Our readers are Korean diaspora scholars, professionals, and practitioners who want writing that connects careful thinking to real work. A good column can begin with exactly that kind of remark.

This post is an invitation and a practical guide. If you have an informed view on a question in your field, the Expert Opinion column is the right place for it, and the new K-GSP Substack template is designed to make the first draft easier to write, not harder.

2. How the Expert Opinion Column Works

The sections below cover three practical questions: what kind of writing belongs in Expert Opinion, how the template turns an idea into a finished article, and what to do about the worries that usually keep good writers from starting.

2.1 What Belongs in Expert Opinion

Since the website restructuring on September 29, 2026, the Forum has organized its work into five core categories: Announcements, Book & Movie Review, Expert Opinion, Research, and Storytelling. Expert Opinion is the home for essays and emerging ideas. It is less formal than Research, which carries more scholarly apparatus, but it is still grounded in evidence and in the author’s experience.

Our contributor guide describes an Expert Opinion piece as “a clearly argued, evidence-grounded perspective on a timely or contested issue” (K-GSP Forum, 2026). That description is a good test. A strong column usually answers three questions. What is the problem? Why does it matter now? What do you, from your discipline or profession, see that others might miss?

Good topics are often closer than you think. A policy change in your sector, a pattern you have watched across years of teaching or consulting, a book that changed how you read your field, or a lesson from working between Korean and American institutions can all become strong columns. The vantage point you bring as a diaspora scholar or professional is part of what readers come for. You do not need to have the final word. You need a clear position, honest evidence, and a willingness to say where the evidence stops.

2.2 Walking Through the Template

The K-GSP Forum Original Article Template gives every article the same reliable shape, and its companion Template Guide explains what goes in each part. You can fill it in from top to bottom.

Begin with one section label, here EXPERT OPINION, then a specific title and your author line. Next comes an Executive Summary of about 75 words that names the problem, your argument, your evidence, and the takeaway, followed by five lowercase keywords.

The body has a target of about 1,000 words. The opening (about 150 words) starts with a concrete observation, a short scene, or a focused question, and then states your thesis. The main argument (about 650 words) opens with a short introduction and then develops three supporting points of about 200 words each. The third point is a good place for the strongest objection or the limits of your argument. The closing (about 200 words) restates your thesis in fresh language and leaves the reader with something to think about.

After the body come References in APA 7 style, About the Author, Suggested Citation, a Korean summary (한글요약) of about 150 to 300 words, and the K-GSP copyright notice as the final line. On Substack, please number the body headings (1., 2., 2.1, 2.2, 3.), because Substack does not reliably display APA heading styles.

2.3 Common Worries, and Honest Answers

“I do not have time for a long piece.” The template’s 1,000-word body sits at the lower end of the 800 to 2,500 words our contributor guide allows for Expert Opinion (K-GSP Forum, 2026). Once the template gives you an outline, a first draft can come together in a sitting or two.

“A template will make my writing sound the same as everyone else’s.” The template fixes the order of the sections, not your voice. Your opening, your examples, and your judgment remain yours. The structure mainly helps readers find their way, and it helps editors give faster, clearer feedback.

“What about sources and AI tools?” Cite only sources you have checked, use APA 7, and never invent data, quotations, or references. Our Terms of Service allow AI-assisted writing, but the work must reflect your own thinking, and substantial AI use should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Coordination.

“I am not sure my topic fits.” Send a short note before you draft. Editors would much rather help shape an idea early than see it go unwritten. Writing regularly also matters for the future: Resident Columnists receive their own homepage sections, and new columnists are added as members reach 30 quality articles on the Forum.

3. One Paragraph Is Enough to Begin

The Expert Opinion column works best when it sounds like a knowledgeable colleague thinking out loud with care. The template does not ask you to become a different writer. It asks you to put one clear idea in an order readers can follow, support it with evidence you trust, and be honest about its limits.

When your draft is ready, follow the steps in How to Publish Your Article on K-GSP Forum Substack (K-GSP Forum, 2026). Log in to kgsp.substack.com with your invited email, create a new article, and paste in your text. Add at least one relevant image, a third-person author bio of three to five sentences, and the copyright notice. Before you send it, select the Expert Opinion tag so the article appears in the right section of the site.

If you are unsure where to start, write the Executive Summary first. Seventy-five words that name your problem and your position will tell you whether the article is ready to grow. Most of the time, it is. The idea you mentioned over coffee deserves more readers than the people at that table, and the Forum is ready for it.

References

K-GSP Forum. (2026, April 9). How to publish your article on K-GSP Forum Substack. https://www.k-gsp.org/p/how-to-publish-your-article-on-k

About the Author

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD, MBA, ME · Managing Editor of K-GSP

Jeonghwan (Jerry) Choi, PhD, is Editor-in-Coordination of the K-GSP Forum and Associate Professor of Business at the University of Maine at Presque Isle. His teaching and research cover leadership, human resource management and development, and organizational behavior and development. Before his academic career, he spent more than 25 years in business consulting, including work with entrepreneurs and start-ups. As Editor-in-Coordination, he works with contributors to bring their ideas to the Forum’s readers.

Suggested Citation

Choi, J. (2026, October 03). Your idea has a home: A friendly guide to writing an Expert Opinion column for the K-GSP Forum. K-GSP Forum.

K-GSP Author Guide:

한글요약

당신의 생각이 머물 곳: K-GSP Forum 전문가 의견(Expert Opinion) 칼럼 쓰기 안내

커피 한 잔을 나누다가, 세미나가 끝난 뒤에, 혹은 긴 이메일을 주고받다가 동료의 날카로운 한마디에 “그거 글로 써 보세요”라고 말해 본 적이 있을 것입니다. 하지만 학기가 바빠지면 그 생각은 대화 속에 그대로 남고 맙니다. K-GSP Forum은 바로 그런 생각을 독자에게 전하기 위해 존재합니다.

이 글은 회원 여러분께 전문가 의견 칼럼 기고를 권하며, 새로 마련한 K-GSP Forum 기고문 템플릿과 안내서를 소개합니다. 2026년 9월 29일 웹사이트 개편 이후 Forum은 공지, 서평·영화평, 전문가 의견, 연구, 스토리텔링의 다섯 분야로 운영됩니다. 전문가 의견은 연구보다 덜 형식적인 에세이와 새로운 생각을 싣는 자리이지만, 근거와 경험에 바탕을 두어야 합니다.

템플릿은 간단합니다. 분류 라벨, 제목, 저자 소개 줄 다음에 약 75단어의 요약과 키워드 다섯 개를 씁니다. 본문은 약 1,000단어로, 도입(150), 핵심 주장(650: 짧은 소개와 세 가지 논점), 마무리(200)로 나뉩니다. 그 뒤에 APA 7 참고문헌, 저자 소개, 인용 표기, 한글요약, 저작권 고지가 이어집니다. Substack에서는 본문 제목에 번호(1., 2.1 등)를 붙여 주십시오.

시간이 걱정된다면, 1,000단어는 기고 안내서가 정한 800~2,500단어 범위의 짧은 쪽입니다. 템플릿은 순서만 정할 뿐 목소리는 그대로 여러분의 것입니다. 출처는 직접 확인한 것만 쓰고, AI를 많이 활용했다면 편집 책임자에게 알려 주십시오. 주제가 맞는지 모르겠다면 쓰기 전에 짧게 문의해 주셔도 좋습니다 (jeonghwan.choi at gmail.com).

자세한 저자를 위한 설명서는 아래에 있습니다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Writing for the K-GSP Forum is now easier. Use the K-GSP Forum Original Article Template in the Substack Dashboard to organize your article from the opening to the final reference list. This guide explains each section and helps you prepare a clear, evidence-based article for publication.

1. Purpose

Use this guide with the K-GSP Forum Original Article Template when writing a new article for the K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. The template provides a consistent publication structure; this guide explains what belongs in each section.

2. Before You Draft

· Identify the concrete problem the article addresses.

· State the intellectual tension or disagreement that gives the topic significance.

· Identify the intended reader: Korean diaspora scholars, professionals, practitioners, or a broader public audience.

· Define the author’s position in one or two clear sentences.

· Collect and verify the evidence, sources, dates, names, quotations, and statistics before drafting.

3. Template Sections

3.1 Section Label

Choose the category that best describes the article: EXPERT OPINION, RESEARCH, STORYTELLING, BOOK & MOVIE REVIEW, or ANNOUNCEMENTS. Use only one label.

3.2 Title and Author Line

Use a specific, informative title. Add a subtitle only when it clarifies the focus. Include the author’s name, degree if supplied, position, and institution. Do not add credentials or affiliations that have not been verified.

3.3 Executive Summary

Write one paragraph of about 75 words. Name the problem, central argument, evidence base, and takeaway. This section is not included in the 1,000-word body target.

3.4 Keywords

Provide five lowercase terms separated by commas. Select words readers are likely to use to find the article’s topic.

3.5 Opening

Target about 150 words. Begin with a concrete observation, short vignette, tension, or focused question. Then identify the problem and state the article’s thesis.

3.6 Main Argument

Target about 650 words in total: a brief introduction of about 50 words, followed by three distinct supporting sections of about 200 words each.

3.7 Supporting Points

Each point should add a different mechanism, source of evidence, case, implication, or counterpoint. Use APA-style in-text citations. Explain what the evidence means, not merely what it says.

3.8 Counterpoint

Use the third supporting section, when appropriate, to address limitations, mixed evidence, or the strongest reasonable objection. Do not hide inconvenient evidence.

3.9 Closing

Target about 200 words. Restate the thesis in fresh language, state the author’s reasoned position, and end with an implication or reframe that remains with the reader.

3.10 References

Use APA 7 style. List references alphabetically. Cite only sources that support specific claims. Verify bibliographic details, including author names, dates, titles, and DOI or URL information.

3.11 About the Author and Suggested Citation

Use only supplied or verified biographical details. Use the actual publication date and URL after publication. Do not invent placeholders as final publication information.

3.12 한글요약

Write a plain, natural Korean summary of about 150–300 words. Keep names, numbers, claims, and qualifications identical to the English article. Avoid literal translation and unnecessarily heavy Sino-Korean wording.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Writing Standards

· Use clear subjects, active verbs, plain academic language, and precise terms. Define technical terms at first use.

· Separate evidence from interpretation. Do not present correlation as causation.

· Use cautious language only when the evidence is uncertain; make a clear claim when evidence supports it.

· Avoid generic openings, promotional language, vague claims such as “research shows,” empty rhetorical questions, stacked transitions, and “In conclusion.”

· Do not use em dashes in newly written prose. Use commas, colons, parentheses, or sentence restructuring instead.

· Do not invent citations, quotes, statistics, anecdotes, findings, or authorial intentions.

Word Budget

Final Check Before Publication

• The article has a clear problem, thesis, audience, and evidence base.

• All factual claims, quotations, dates, names, statistics, and citations have been verified.

• Every citation supports the claim immediately associated with it.

• The article distinguishes evidence, interpretation, and opinion.

• The English article and Korean summary match in names, numbers, claims, and limitations.

• Tables and figures, if used, are referenced in the text before appearing and include a label, title, and note or source line.

• Sensitive exchanges, people, institutions, and manuscript details are anonymized when necessary.

• The required K-GSP copyright block is the final line.

Original Article:

K Gsp Template Guide

107KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Executive Summary

[Approximately 75 words. State the concrete problem, central argument, evidence base, and practical or intellectual takeaway.]

Keywords: [five lowercase terms, separated by commas]

1. [Opening Heading]

[Approximately 150 words. Begin with a short vignette, concrete observation, tension, or focused question. State the problem and the thesis.]

2. [Main Argument Heading]

[One or two sentences introducing the argument, approximately 50 words.]

2.1 [First Supporting Point]

[Approximately 200 words. Present a claim, evidence with APA-style in-text citation, and explain what the evidence means.]

2.1.1 [Optional Detail or Case]

[Use only if needed. This content is included within the first supporting point’s word count.]

2.2 [Second Supporting Point]

[Approximately 200 words. Present a second, distinct line of evidence, mechanism, case, or implication.]

2.3 [Third Supporting Point or Counterpoint]

[Approximately 200 words. Address the strongest counterargument, limitation, or mixed evidence. Explain why the overall position still holds, including its proper boundaries.]

3. [Closing Heading]

[Approximately 200 words. Restate the thesis in new language, state the author’s position, and end with a reframe, quiet provocation, or durable idea.]

5. References

[Use APA 7 references in alphabetical order. Include only verified sources that support the specific claims in the article.]

6. About the Author

[Author Name] · [Position], [Institution]

[Three to four sentences. Include only author-supplied or verified biographical information. Link to the author’s K-GSP column tag if one exists.]

7. Suggested Citation

[Author, A. A.] ([Year, Month Day]). [Sentence-case article title]. K-GSP Forum. [URL]

Download the template:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShDJymHlWnSQY2zymauunYIkeiamsg_8IUfB6YbYwCI/edit?usp=drive_link

한글요약

[한국어 제목]

[Plain, natural Korean summary, typically 150–300 words. Preserve the English text’s names, numbers, claims, sources, and qualifications.]

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP

Figure: Five Ways to Have a Pleasant Professorial Career in America—Five Haibun. AI-generated illustration created with OpenAI image generation, 2026.

Poet’s Note:

The Haiku Society of America defines a haibun as “a terse, relatively short prose poem in the haikai style, usually including both lightly humorous and more serious elements, and typically ending with a haiku.” (Haiku Society of America: Haiku Definitions. https://www.hsa-haiku.org/hsa-definitions.html)

In my experience, many Asian professors place a strong emphasis on hard work, professional achievement, and accountability. In general, they do not need much advice on how to become competent and productive academics and researchers, especially those who grew up and worked in Asia, where professional competence alone does not always guarantee success because personal connections can be as important as professional ability. The following five senryu-based haibun address five things that, in my experience, can make professorial life more pleasant and less stressful.

These five tips are based on my own experience of American academic life, first as a graduate teaching assistant and lecturer, then as an adjunct professor, and later as a professor. I began my teaching career in the United States in the spring of 1989, during the second semester of my master’s studies. I have certainly made my share of mistakes, and these tips have grown out of my trials, errors, and experiences along the way. At the twilight of my academic career, I thought that sharing these five lessons with younger scholars might be helpful.

#1: Smile

One of the first things I noticed after coming to the United States was that people smiled—and smiled a lot—even at people they did not know. Perhaps this was partly because I came to Kansas rather than New York City or Boston, where social interactions can seem less personal. Coming from a corporate background marked by considerable stress and accustomed to multitasking, I found this friendliness refreshing. Before long, I learned to smile as well, and it made me feel better.

Fundamentally, most of our colleagues are people we may never have known outside the workplace and may never see again once one of us leaves. Yet exchanging a smile with a colleague can make campus life warmer and less hostile. Professors are often so engrossed in demanding projects or so buried under a heavy stack of papers to grade that they forget to smile. A smile costs nothing, yet it can brighten the day of those who receive it.

hallway—
we smile at each other
I don’t know her name

#2: Have a Sense of Humor

Based on my experience of traveling to more than a dozen countries, I have found the United States to be a country in which humor plays an especially prominent role in everyday life. Every country has its share of humorous people, of course, but in the United States, humor is often an essential part of social interaction. Public speeches commonly begin with a humorous remark, and even some preachers begin their sermons with a light joke. In return, the audience is expected to laugh, even when the joke is not particularly funny. Humor serves as an icebreaker, and laughing together can create a sense of oneness, at least on the surface.

It can be difficult for people who are new to the United States, especially serious scholars, to know how to respond to humor. One thing they may learn is to expect a joke at almost any moment, including when meeting someone for the first time. Another is how to respond to it. A simple, lighthearted response can help put everyone at ease, whereas little or no response can make an otherwise friendly encounter somewhat awkward. Regardless of their positions or occupations, people need moments of lightness in their lives. A sense of humor, or simply a willingness to appreciate and respond to humor, can make a person more likeable than someone who always appears serious or expressionless. In general, having a colleague or supervisee who is overly serious or even grumpy can make the workplace less pleasant.

our team humorist—
we smile
before he speaks

#3: Say Thank You

In some cultures, people may appreciate someone’s kindness in their hearts without expressing their gratitude outwardly. Those who perform an act of kindness may simply assume that their efforts have been appreciated. In the United States, however, people tend to express their appreciation more explicitly, often in writing as well as in person. From an American perspective, expressing gratitude is an important part of maintaining good relationships. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a recommendation letter for one of my supervisees. Earlier this week, when I opened my office door, I found a thank-you card from her on the floor. Her office is directly across the narrow hallway from mine, close enough that we can communicate by calling each other without even raising our voices. She had already thanked me by email, but this time she gave me a card as well. Not many young people these days take such extra steps to express their appreciation, but she was raised in a family that taught her the value of good manners.

On the other hand, forgetting to say thank you can be a red flag in a collegial relationship. I once had a colleague, a staff member, who emailed me about a new instructor who was not under my supervision. I replied that the instructor did not work in my academic unit and directed him to the appropriate supervisor. Obviously, he had sent the email to the wrong person, but I took the time to provide the information he needed. I never received a thank-you response. If he were to send me a similar request in the future, I would probably hesitate before taking the time to help. A simple “thank you” costs nothing. It takes only a couple of seconds to type the words, but it can make people more willing to help one another.

unexpected thank-you card—
I read it
twice

#4: Say Sorry

Everyone makes mistakes. The only difference is that some people make more mistakes than others. When we make mistakes in the workplace, we often inconvenience someone, even if only momentarily. That person may be our supervisor, colleague, staff member, or even a student. When we make a mistake, it is important to admit it as soon as possible and apologize sincerely.

As a coeditor of an academic book, I sent an email to all the contributors last night asking them to revise their chapters based on the copyeditor’s comments, suggestions, and questions. The message was essentially the same for everyone. I had sent one author a similar email earlier, so I recycled that message, pasted it into the email I was preparing for another author, and clicked the Send button without noticing that I had not changed everything.

Today, I received a reply from the author confirming that he would finish revising his chapter over the weekend. At the end of his message, he added a note: “P. S. Not sure who the ‘Brian ______’ was that you ran into in West Plains, but it wasn’t this one. (Haven’t been there in years. :)” I immediately realized what I had done. I had copied an email addressed to “Steve” and accidentally left in the opening: “I hope this email finds you well. It was great to see you in West Plains a couple of weeks ago.” Of course, I apologized for the confusion. A simple apology can quickly resolve a mistake that might otherwise become unnecessarily awkward.

here goes again—
clicking the Send button
before replacing the name

#5: Avoid Negativity

Life is full of problems, and they will not end until we depart from this world. We persist despite our problems because that is simply the way of life. Sometimes problems need to be dealt with. At other times, however, they cannot be solved, and we are better off learning to live with them, so to speak, grinning and bearing them unless they threaten our lives.

One strategy for maintaining a pleasant work life is to focus on the positive rather than the negative. All colleges and universities, even prestigious and wealthy ones, have their own problems, and it is easy to gripe about one’s workplace. As a long-term professor at a small university, I have always believed that people should not remain in a place that makes them consistently unhappy. If a workplace is truly unbearable, they should consider finding a better place, although a new workplace may look better on the surface while having problems of its own.

On a more personal level, it is prudent to avoid making negative comments about someone’s appearance, weight, quirks, or peculiarities. Such comments may not occur very often in an academic setting, but people sometimes laugh when they hear demeaning remarks about others, including senior administrators and colleagues. Even so, they are likely to become wary of the person making those remarks. They may reason that someone who mocks others may eventually mock them behind their backs. Avoiding unnecessary negativity can help build trust and make collegial relationships more comfortable. The key is to strive to be known as someone who is pleasant rather than unpleasant.

heated faculty meeting—
senior professors
just listen

Christ Church College, Oxford, was founded in 1546 by King Henry VIII. Its alumni include Sir Philip Sidney (1554-86), poet and courtier; Lewis Carroll (1832-98), author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass (1871); John Crowe Ransom (1888-1974), scholar and literary critic; and W. H. Auden (1907-73), poet. Photos by John J. Han, 13 May 2026.

About the Author

Professor of English and Creative Writing and Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and Theology, Missouri Baptist University

John J. Han, PhD, is the author, editor, co-editor, or translator of 38 books published by Rodopi, Peter Lang, McFarland, Bloomsbury Academic, and other presses. He has published hundreds of scholarly articles and more than 3,000 poems, mostly haiku, in journals and anthologies around the world. His forthcoming book, Echoes from the Hills: Critical Essays on Ozarks Literature, co-edited with C. Clark Triplett, will be published by the University of Arkansas Press. He is in his 28th year as a full-time faculty member at Missouri Baptist University, where he has taught since 1999. He has also taught at Kansas State University, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Nebraska Wesleyan University, and Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as a visiting scholar at Georgia College & State University and the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

Executive Summary

Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha emerged from very different historical contexts, yet both demonstrate how literature can connect historical experience with moral responsibility and public action. Grass became an important postwar voice urging Germany to confront historical guilt and collective responsibility, while Kim Ji-ha acted as a literary and civic activist during Korea’s authoritarian transition, using satire and poetic witness to challenge repression and defend human dignity. Their contrasting roles illustrate a broader principle of nexus leadership: societies need voices that help the public remember historical lessons while resisting injustice in changing contemporary contexts, transforming memory and moral courage into constructive social renewal.

Keywords: Collective Memory; Historical Remembrance; Democratic Resistance; Nexus Leadership; Moral Responsibility

1. Introduction

This article began with a series of conversations between two scholars trained in different intellectual traditions. Heejoong Kim, trained in German literature and memory studies, completed his Ph.D. research on Günter Grass’s later works within the context of German memory culture, while also developing a comparative perspective on the early works of Korean poet Kim Ji-ha. Paul C. Hong, a global supply chain and management scholar, has become increasingly interested in literature as another way of understanding how individuals, institutions, and societies respond to disruption, uncertainty, historical experience, and moral choice. Their conversations brought together literary interpretation and broader questions of social responsibility, leading to a central question: What can literature teach us about how societies remember the past, resist injustice, and carry those lessons into the future?

The comparison between Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha emerged naturally from Kim’s earlier scholarly work and from the authors’ subsequent discussions. Grass and Kim came from different languages, political systems, and literary traditions, yet both treated literature as more than artistic expression. Grass repeatedly challenged postwar Germany to confront Nazism, collective guilt, silence, and historical responsibility, while Kim Ji-ha used poetry and satire to challenge political repression and defend justice, freedom, and human dignity during South Korea’s authoritarian period. Their contrasting experiences reveal two complementary functions of literature: Grass asks societies to remember; Kim Ji-ha challenges them to resist (Grass, 1962; Kim, 1974; Kim, 2003).

These conversations also led naturally to the concept of collective memory. Maurice Halbwachs demonstrated that memory is socially constructed rather than simply individual (Halbwachs, 1992). Jan Assmann distinguished communicative memory from cultural memory transmitted across generations, while Aleida Assmann further differentiated storage memory from functional memory (A. Assmann, 2011; J. Assmann, 2011). Pierre Nora similarly showed how societies sustain historical consciousness through lieux de mémoire, or sites of memory (Nora, 1989). Literature can therefore be understood as a distinctive medium through which historical experiences are not merely recorded but interpreted, contested, remembered, and transmitted.

The central argument of this article is that remembering and resisting are not competing literary functions but complementary forms of social responsibility. Grass demonstrates how literature can compel societies to confront uncomfortable truths and accept historical accountability, while Kim Ji-ha shows how literature can preserve moral courage and resistance in the face of political injustice. Remembering without resistance can become passive commemoration, whereas resistance without remembering can lose historical direction. Taken together, their literary legacies suggest that truthful remembrance and principled resistance are both necessary for preserving human dignity and strengthening collective responsibility.

2. Contextual Overview

Postwar Germany and authoritarian Korea represent two very different historical settings, yet both reveal how political authority, ordinary citizens, public intellectuals, dissident voices, and the broader majority interact in periods of moral and political transformation.

Germany’s central challenge was how to confront historical guilt and responsibility after dictatorship and war, whereas Korea’s challenge was how to resist repression and defend human dignity under authoritarian rule. In both cases, social change depended on the movement from private experience toward public consciousness, collective judgment, and broader civic response.

2.1. Postwar Germany: From Burdened Memory to Accountable Remembrance

Postwar Germany inherited the moral and political burden of Nazism, war, mass violence, and national collapse. Political authority faced the difficult task of rebuilding democratic institutions while society struggled with trauma, guilt, silence, and the temptation to distance itself from the recent past. For many ordinary citizens, the immediate postwar years involved not only material reconstruction but also an uneasy relationship with questions of complicity, responsibility, and remembrance. The historical problem was therefore not simply how Germany could recover economically and politically, but how it could confront a past that many initially preferred to suppress or compartmentalize.

Public intellectuals, writers, historians, educators, and civic voices gradually became important nexus actors connecting historical experience with public debate. Günter Grass belonged to this wider intellectual environment, using literature to challenge silence and force difficult questions about guilt, memory, and responsibility into public consciousness. As such debates expanded, the broader majority increasingly moved from avoidance toward moral reckoning, public discussion, and institutionalized remembrance. The long-term outcome was the development of a stronger culture of accountable memory, in which remembrance became connected with responsibility, democratic renewal, and continuing self-examination.

Figure 1 shows that historical change cannot be understood through rulers or prominent writers alone, because the meanings of oppression, guilt, resistance, and responsibility emerge through interactions among rulers, the ruled, nexus activists, and the broader majority. By placing postwar Germany and authoritarian Korea side by side, the figure highlights how different historical contexts produced different pathways—Germany toward accountable memory and Korea toward civic resistance—while both depended on the gradual movement of private experience into public consciousness. These broader historical dynamics provide the foundation for the more detailed discussion of the roles played by writers, intellectuals, civic actors, and the broader public within those historical contexts, and of how their legacies continued to shape collective memory, democratic responsibility, and constructive social resolution over time.

Figure 1

Historical Contexts of Remembering and Resisting: Rulers, Ruled, Nexus Activists, Majority, and Outcomes

2.2. Authoritarian Korea: From Repression to Democratic Resistance

South Korea’s authoritarian period developed under a different historical structure. Political authority was concentrated within military-backed governments that emphasized order, rapid development, national security, and centralized control, while also restricting political dissent and public criticism. Ordinary citizens experienced this environment unevenly, but censorship, surveillance, fear, and political repression shaped the boundaries of public expression. The central tension was therefore less about confronting the crimes of a defeated regime than about how citizens could respond to injustice and restrictions occurring in their own time.

Within this setting, poets, students, clergy, journalists, intellectuals, and other dissident voices acted as nexus activists between political repression and broader public awareness. Kim Ji-ha became one of the most visible literary figures in this role, transforming poetry and satire into forms of witness that exposed corruption, oppression, and violations of human dignity. Such voices did not act alone; their influence depended on the gradual expansion of social solidarity among students, workers, religious communities, civic organizations, and ordinary citizens. Over time, fear increasingly gave way to democratic awakening, contributing to a broader culture of civic resistance grounded in dignity, courage, participation, and democratization.

2.3. Comparing the Two Contexts: Rulers, Ruled, Nexus Activists, and the Majority

The German and Korean cases differ in historical timing, political structure, and the nature of the central moral problem. Postwar Germany confronted the legacy of a collapsed dictatorship and the question of how a society should remember its own involvement in historical wrongdoing; authoritarian Korea confronted ongoing political repression and the question of how citizens should respond to injustice while it was occurring. In Germany, the movement was broadly from silence toward remembrance; in Korea, it was from fear toward resistance. Yet both contexts show that public transformation involved more than a simple confrontation between rulers and the ruled.

The crucial connecting role was played by nexus activists—writers, intellectuals, students, clergy, and civic voices who translated private suffering or historical discomfort into public language. Their influence became consequential when the broader majority began to engage with the questions they raised, whether through moral reckoning, public debate, solidarity, or collective action. The eventual outcomes were therefore different but related: Germany developed a stronger culture of accountable memory, while Korea strengthened civic resistance and democratic participation. The shared pattern is clear: rulers shape the conditions, the ruled experience them, nexus activists interpret and challenge them, and the majority determines whether memory or resistance becomes a broader social force.

3. Roles of Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha

Although literary works often transcend the lives of their authors, understanding the historical experiences, cultural environments, and intellectual commitments that shaped writers provides valuable insight into the enduring significance of their works. Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha wrote in response to very different national crises, yet both believed that literature bears a profound responsibility to preserve historical truth, awaken public conscience, and encourage moral reflection.

Figure 2

Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha: Remembering and Resisting Through Collective Memory

Source: Authors’ Own Synthesis

Figure 2 presents two complementary pathways through which literature shapes collective memory: Günter Grass emphasizes historical remembrance, while Kim Ji-ha emphasizes democratic resistance. Their works move from historical experience to literary representation, then into collective memory and finally moral reflection, showing how literature transforms suffering and injustice into public meaning. Grass reminds societies to remember uncomfortable truths with accountability, while Kim Ji-ha reminds them to resist injustice with courage and human dignity. Together, the figure captures the article’s central message: remember truth, resist injustice, and build a more responsible future.

3.1. Günter Grass: The Conscience of Germany’s Memory Culture

Günter Grass (1927–2015) was born in the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) during one of Europe’s most turbulent periods. As a teenager, he experienced the collapse of Nazi Germany firsthand, including military service during the final stages of World War II. These formative experiences profoundly influenced his lifelong determination to confront Germany’s difficult past rather than allow it to be forgotten or simplified. Throughout his literary career, Grass consistently argued that democratic societies mature only when they acknowledge historical guilt, examine uncomfortable truths, and cultivate open public dialogue (Grass, 1962).

His landmark novel The Tin Drum (1959), together with later works such as Cat and Mouse and Dog Years, challenged postwar Germany to confront Nazism, wartime complicity, and postwar silence. Rather than portraying history as a closed chapter, Grass viewed remembrance as an ongoing civic obligation requiring continuous reflection and debate. Yet his moral authority became more complicated after his 2006 disclosure that, as a teenager, he had served in the Waffen-SS—a fact he had not publicly revealed during the decades in which he became one of Germany’s most prominent advocates of confronting the Nazi past. The controversy exposed a tension between his public call for historical candor and his delayed personal disclosure, but it also deepens the significance of his legacy for collective memory: remembering requires not only confronting a nation’s uncomfortable past but also facing one’s own. Grass’s life and writings therefore illuminate both the moral necessity of historical accountability and the human difficulty of practicing complete self-confrontation (Grass, 1962; Grass, 2008; A. Assmann, 2011).

3.2. Kim Ji-ha: The Poet of Democratic Resistance

Kim Ji-ha (1941–2022) emerged as one of South Korea’s most influential poets and public intellectuals during decades marked by political authoritarianism and rapid social transformation. Writing primarily during the 1970s under the Park Chung-hee government, Kim employed poetry, satire, and traditional Korean literary forms to expose political repression, social injustice, and violations of human rights. His writing and political activism led to censorship, imprisonment, surveillance, torture, and repeated legal persecution, transforming him into an international symbol of artistic freedom and democratic resistance (Kim, 1974; Kim, 2003).

Among his most influential works, Five Bandits sharply criticized political corruption and the concentration of economic and political power, while many of his poems gave voice to ordinary citizens whose experiences were excluded from official narratives. Kim understood literature not merely as artistic expression but as moral witness capable of preserving the memory of suffering and inspiring democratic aspirations. Yet his legacy also contains an important moral tension: the poet who became an internationally recognized symbol of resistance later adopted philosophical and public positions that generated controversy and disagreement within Korean society. This does not erase the courage or historical significance of his earlier resistance, but it complicates any simple portrayal of him as a fixed moral symbol. Kim’s changing public identity therefore reminds us that collective memory should preserve not only heroic moments but also the ambiguities, transformations, and contradictions that accompany a human life (Kim, 1974; Kim, 2003).

4. Literary Masterpieces: Remembering and Resisting Through Literature

The literary legacies of Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha are best understood through their major works, which transformed literature into a vehicle for historical remembrance, moral reflection, and democratic engagement. Rather than merely recording historical events, both writers challenged readers to confront difficult truths, question established narratives, and assume responsibility for shaping a more just society. Their writings demonstrate that literature not only reflects collective memory but also actively constructs and renews it across generations (Halbwachs, 1992; J. Assmann, 2011).

Table 1

Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha on Collective Memory

Source: Authors’ Synthesis

Table 1 provides a concise comparative summary of how Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha used literature as a medium of collective memory in two different historical settings. Grass is presented as a writer of historical remembrance and moral accountability in postwar Germany, whereas Kim Ji-ha is presented as a poet of democratic resistance and human dignity in authoritarian Korea, while the shared implication column shows that both literary paths strengthen public conscience and civic responsibility. By organizing the comparison across historical context, literary mission, strategy, democratic contribution, and contemporary relevance, the table makes clear that literature does not merely reflect history but helps societies interpret trauma, preserve truth, and pursue constructive moral and political renewal.

4.1. Günter Grass’s The Tin Drum: Remembering the Burden of History

Published in 1959, The Tin Drum (Die Blechtrommel) established Günter Grass as one of the leading literary voices of postwar Europe. Through the unforgettable character Oskar Matzerath, who refuses to grow physically while witnessing the moral collapse of German society, Grass employs satire, magical realism, and historical symbolism to expose the consequences of Nazism, war, and collective silence. Rather than offering a straightforward historical narrative, the novel challenges readers to examine how ordinary individuals become participants in or spectators of historical injustice. The novel became an influential contribution to Germany’s evolving public discourse about its past. Grass rejected selective forgetting and argued that democratic societies cannot build a healthy future without honestly confronting historical guilt. The Tin Drum therefore became more than a literary masterpiece; it became an important contribution to Germany’s evolving Erinnerungskultur (memory culture), encouraging generations of readers to recognize remembrance as an ethical and civic responsibility rather than a purely historical exercise (Grass, 1962; A. Assmann, 2011; Nora, 1989).

4.2. Kim Ji-ha’s Five Bandits: Resisting Oppression Through Poetic Witness

Kim Ji-ha’s satirical poem Five Bandits (오적), published in 1970, became an influential literary expression of Korea’s democratization struggle by exposing the connections among political authority, economic privilege, corruption, and social inequality. Drawing on satire and traditional Korean literary forms, Kim challenged official narratives and gave voice to people whose experiences of repression and injustice were often excluded from public discourse (Kim, 1974). Government censorship, imprisonment, surveillance, and repeated persecution increased the personal cost of his criticism but also reinforced his public role as a literary witness to injustice and human dignity. Five Bandits thus demonstrates how literature can preserve the memory of oppression while turning satire, testimony, and moral courage into forms of peaceful resistance and hope for democratic transformation (Kim, 1974; Kim, 2003).

5. Comparative Analysis: Lessons from Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha

The comparison of Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha reveals two complementary democratic responsibilities: truthful remembrance of historical wrongdoing and principled resistance to present injustice (Halbwachs, 1992; J. Assmann, 2011; Nora, 1989).

5.1. Günter Grass: Remembering as Moral Responsibility

One of Grass’s enduring contributions is his insistence that societies cannot build a healthy future by suppressing painful memories, because historical responsibility begins with acknowledging uncomfortable truths rather than constructing convenient national myths. By confronting Germany’s experience of Nazism, war, and collective guilt, his writings helped make remembrance a democratic responsibility rather than merely a source of shame (Grass, 1962; A. Assmann, 2011). Grass also emphasized that memory culture should remain an open public conversation grounded in self-criticism, historical evidence, and multiple perspectives rather than becoming a rigid official narrative. In this sense, his literary legacy suggests that honest remembrance can support reconciliation, civic trust, democratic maturity, and ultimately stronger national resilience (A. Assmann, 2011; Nora, 1989).

5.2. Kim Ji-ha: Resisting as Democratic Responsibility

Where Grass emphasized historical remembrance, Kim Ji-ha emphasized moral resistance to injustice in the present, showing how silence under oppression can erode human dignity and democratic freedom. Through satire, symbolism, and poetic witness, Kim transformed literature into an act of civic courage that preserved marginalized voices and encouraged ordinary citizens to defend truth despite censorship and repression (Kim, 1974; Kim, 2003). His writings suggest that freedom is neither automatic nor permanent but depends on vigilance, ethical conviction, public participation, and the preservation of lived experiences of suffering, sacrifice, and hope. Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha show that remembrance safeguards historical truth, resistance protects democratic freedom, and literature sustains the moral imagination needed for responsible collective life (Glickman & Sharot, 2025; Yin et al., 2024; Hong, 2026).

6. Conclusion

In any era, societies need nexus leaders who connect historical lessons with present challenges—remembering what must not be forgotten while resisting what should not be accepted. Kim Ji-ha played this role during Korea’s difficult transition from authoritarian rule toward democratization, using literature and activism to expose repression, defend human dignity, and give moral language to civic resistance. Günter Grass played a different but equally important role in postwar Germany by pressing society to confront Nazism, collective guilt, and historical responsibility, even though his own delayed disclosure of Waffen-SS service complicated his moral authority. Their personal limitations do not erase the significance of their messages: constructive social renewal depends on voices willing to interpret the past, challenge the present, and help the broader public transform memory and resistance into responsibility.

References

Assmann, A. (2011). Cultural memory and Western civilization: Functions, media, archives. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1999)

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1992)

Glickman, M., & Sharot, T. (2025). How human–AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(2), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02077-2

Grass, G. (1962). The tin drum (R. Manheim, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1959)

Grass, G. (2004). Crabwalk (K. Winston, Trans.). Faber & Faber. (Original work published 2002)

Grass, G. (2008). Peeling the onion (M. H. Heim, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 2006)

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1925)

Hong, P. C. (2026, June 18). Between the inner journey and the outer struggle: Hermann Hesse and Ernest Hemingway on human flourishing in the AI-mediated collective memory. K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum, 1–9.

Kim, C.-H. (1974). Cry of the people and other poems. Autumn Press.

Kim, J.-H. (2003). 흰 그늘의 길 [The path of the white shadow] (Vols. 1–3). Hakgojae.

Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520

Yin, Y., Jia, N., & Wakslak, C. J. (2024). AI can help people feel heard, but an AI label diminishes this impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(14), Article e2319112121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319112121

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Heejoong Kim — Lecturer in German Literature, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Heejoong Kim is a lecturer in German literature at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies whose research focuses on modern German literature, memory studies, and collective memory. He earned his Ph.D. in Modern German Literature from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, where his research examined Günter Grass and Korean poet Kim Ji-ha through the lens of memory culture and historical responsibility. His scholarship explores how literature preserves historical memory, encourages moral reflection, and strengthens intercultural understanding in the AI-mediated age.

Paul C. Hong — Distinguished University Professor, University of Toledo

Paul C. Hong is a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Toledo whose research spans leadership, governance, global supply chain management, and decision-making in the AI-mediated age. His interest in literature grew from his work as a global supply chain scholar, where he came to see that complex systems are shaped not only by technology, economics, and institutions but also by human character, cultural memory, moral judgment, and historical experience. This perspective led him to explore literature, biography, history, and philosophy as complementary sources of insight into leadership and human development. He believes that as artificial intelligence transforms society, understanding human nature and moral judgment becomes increasingly important for responsible leadership and innovation.

Original Article:

10 1 26 Between Remembering And Resisting Günter Grass And Kim Ji Ha On Collective Memory Paulhong

3.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Suggested Citation

Kim, H., & Hong, P. C. (2026, October 1). Between remembering and resisting: Günter Grass and Kim Ji-ha on collective memory in the AI-mediated age. K-GSP Forum, pp. 1–11.

한글요약

기억과 저항 사이: 귄터 그라스와 김지하가 AI 시대의 집단기억에 주는 교훈

김희중은 한국외국어대학교에서 독일문학을 강의하며, 현대 독일문학·기억연구·집단기억과 역사적 의식을 연구한다.

Paul C. Hong은 미국 University of Toledo의 Distinguished University Professor로 리더십·거버넌스·글로벌 공급망·AI 시대의 의사결정과 인간적 지혜를 연구하며, 공급망 현상을 경제적 효율성과 기술의 문제만이 아니라 인간의 선택, 역사적 경험, 문화적 가치와 사회적 책임이 상호작용하는 과정으로 이해하기 위해 문학적 통찰을 중요하게 여긴다.

인공지능은 이제 단순히 정보를 처리하는 도구를 넘어, 어떤 역사적 사건과 이야기가 기억되고 강조되며 잊히는지를 결정하는 집단기억의 새로운 매개자가 되고 있다. 검색 알고리즘과 생성형 AI는 방대한 역사 자료를 보존하고 접근성을 높일 수 있지만, 동시에 잘못된 정보, 알고리즘 편향, 선택적 기억과 역사 왜곡을 확대할 위험도 가지고 있다. 이러한 시대에 문학은 단순히 과거의 사실을 기록하는 것이 아니라 인간의 고통과 감정, 도덕적 갈등을 해석하고 다음 세대가 역사를 어떻게 기억해야 하는지를 성찰하게 하는 중요한 역할을 한다. 이 글은 집단기억 이론을 바탕으로 독일의 귄터 그라스(Günter Grass)와 한국의 김지하(Kim Ji-ha)를 비교하면서, 문학이 역사적 경험을 집단기억과 도덕적 성찰로 전환하여 민주적 책임과 윤리적 AI 거버넌스에 기여할 수 있음을 제시한다.

두 작가는 서로 다른 역사와 문학적 전통에서 출발했지만, 문학을 사회적 양심과 도덕적 책임의 수단으로 보았다는 점에서 만난다. 귄터 그라스는 『양철북(The Tin Drum)』을 비롯한 작품들을 통해 나치즘, 홀로코스트, 전쟁과 독일 사회의 집단적 책임을 끊임없이 되돌아보게 하면서, 민주사회의 성숙은 불편한 과거를 망각하는 것이 아니라 정직하게 기억(remembering) 하는 데서 시작된다고 강조하였다. 반면 김지하는 군사독재 시대에 「오적(Five Bandits)」과 같은 풍자시를 통해 정치적 억압, 부패와 사회적 불의를 고발하고 인간의 존엄성과 자유를 위한 저항(resisting) 의 목소리를 냈다. 따라서 그라스가 “과거의 잘못을 어떻게 기억할 것인가”라는 역사적 책임을 강조했다면, 김지하는 “현재의 불의에 어떻게 저항할 것인가”라는 민주적 책임을 강조하였다. 기억 없는 저항은 역사적 방향을 잃을 수 있고, 저항 없는 기억은 수동적인 기념에 머물 수 있다는 점에서 두 사람의 문학은 상호보완적이다.

이러한 비교는 AI 시대에 더욱 중요한 의미를 갖는다. AI는 엄청난 양의 역사적 정보를 저장하고 설득력 있는 이야기를 만들어낼 수 있지만, 어떤 기억이 도덕적 관심을 받아야 하는지, 어떤 왜곡에 저항해야 하는지, 그리고 과거의 고통을 오늘의 책임과 어떻게 연결할 것인지 스스로 판단할 수는 없다. 그라스는 기술적 진보가 역사적 기억과 책임 위에 세워져야 함을 일깨우고, 김지하는 민주사회가 새로운 형태의 검열·조작·배제에 지속적으로 저항해야 함을 보여준다. 결국 이 글이 제시하는 핵심은 명료하다. 기억은 역사적 진실을 지키고, 저항은 민주적 자유를 보호하며, 문학은 AI가 대신할 수 없는 인간의 윤리적 상상력과 양심을 길러준다. AI가 정보를 보존할 수 있다면, 그 정보를 지혜와 책임으로 전환하여 미래 세대에게 전달하는 일은 여전히 인간의 몫이다.

© K-Global Scholars and Professionals Forum. All rights reserved. Content published in the K-GSP Forum may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the K-GSP Forum, except for brief quotations with full attribution.

When AI Learns to Remember

Memory, Intelligence, and the New Infrastructure of the AI Era

Abstract

The rapid development of frontier artificial intelligence is changing how we understand machine intelligence. Recent advances in AI agents demonstrate not only stronger reasoning and problem-solving capabilities but also an increasing ability to preserve context, use external tools, and perform complex tasks over extended periods. The reported performance of OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3 has drawn particular attention to the role of persistent reasoning state and memory. However, the reported 99.9% result requires careful interpretation because it was obtained under a Provider Adapter configuration rather than the benchmark’s Standard harness (ARC Prize, 2026). This distinction points to a broader technological transformation: AI capability increasingly depends on the interaction among computation, memory, context, tools, and persistent state. As AI systems become more agentic, demand is also expanding for high-bandwidth memory, storage, networking, and data-center infrastructure. At the same time, persistent memory and autonomous action create new challenges for AI safety, cybersecurity, governance, and meaningful human control. This essay argues that the next phase of AI development should be understood not simply as a transition from computation to greater intelligence, but as a transition toward persistent machine intelligence. The central question is therefore not only whether machines can think, but whether they can remember, act, learn, and improve while humans retain meaningful responsibility and control.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI agents, machine memory, persistent AI, KV cache, HBM, recursive self-improvement, AI safety, cybersecurity, human control

The Meaning Behind 99.9%

Artificial intelligence has long been associated with computation. Progress has traditionally been measured through larger models, faster processors, more training data, and greater computing capacity. The emergence of increasingly capable AI agents, however, suggests that another resource is becoming equally important: memory. Recent frontier systems are increasingly able to preserve information, use tools, operate software, and continue complex tasks over extended periods. This development suggests that the next stage of AI may depend not only on how quickly machines compute, but also on how effectively they remember, organize, and reuse information.

The reported performance of GPT-6 Astra illustrates this transition. OpenAI reports that Astra achieved 99.9% on ARC-AGI-3 under a Provider Adapter configuration and 98% on FrontierMath Tier 4, while demonstrating increasingly sophisticated capabilities in computer use, software engineering, cybersecurity, and other professional tasks (OpenAI, 2026a). Such numbers naturally create the impression that AI may have crossed an important threshold toward artificial general intelligence. Yet the numbers require careful interpretation. ARC Prize reported a 62.7% result under its Standard harness, while the 99.9% result was obtained under a Provider Adapter configuration that preserved opaque reasoning state and employed context compaction (ARC Prize, 2026). ARC Prize also cautioned that a high ARC-AGI-3 score should not by itself be treated as proof that AGI has been achieved.

This distinction is important because it shifts attention from the number itself to the conditions that produced the number. If preserving reasoning state can substantially improve performance, then memory and context management are not merely supporting functions. They can become part of the effective architecture of intelligence.

From Computing to Remembering

The implications extend well beyond AI models. During long inference tasks, large language models must retain information about previous interactions and intermediate computations. One important mechanism is the key-value (KV) cache, which stores information that can be reused during generation. As context windows become longer and AI agents perform more extended tasks, KV-cache capacity and memory bandwidth become increasingly important. Recent research has consequently focused on KV-cache compression, low-rank approximation, adaptive management, and other methods for reducing memory requirements while preserving performance (Lee et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025). This development helps explain why the AI infrastructure race is increasingly becoming a memory race as well as a computing race.

A traditional computer becomes more useful when it calculates faster. An AI agent becomes more capable when it can remember what it has already done. A system that must repeatedly reconstruct its context has a fundamentally different operating cost from one that can preserve and retrieve relevant state efficiently.

The implications for infrastructure are substantial. AI systems require accelerators, HBM, DRAM, enterprise storage, networking, electricity, and cooling. As AI inference becomes longer and more persistent, memory capacity and bandwidth become increasingly central to system performance. The AI data center is therefore evolving from a facility dominated by computing resources into an integrated ecosystem of compute, memory, network, storage, and energy.

Memory Is Not Intelligence

Yet an important distinction must be maintained: memory is not the same as intelligence. The ARC-AGI results do not demonstrate that memory alone caused the difference between the reported 62.7% and 99.9% results. The two evaluation configurations impose different conditions, including the preservation of reasoning state and context (ARC Prize, 2026). What the results demonstrate more clearly is that persistent state and context management can have a substantial effect on the practical capabilities of an AI system.

The distinction is equally important for human intelligence. A person can remember thousands of facts without understanding them. A society can preserve enormous historical records and still repeat historical mistakes. Memory creates continuity, but continuity does not automatically create judgment.

The principle can be expressed simply: Memory can strengthen intelligence, but memory alone cannot guarantee wisdom. This distinction may become increasingly important as AI systems acquire longer memories and more persistent interactions.

The Rise of the Persistent AI Agent

The traditional chatbot waits for a question and provides an answer. The emerging AI agent can instead pursue a goal. It can browse the Internet, operate software, write and test programs, manipulate files, and perform multistep tasks with decreasing human intervention. OpenAI describes Astra as capable of increasingly sophisticated computer use and professional work (OpenAI, 2026a).

The transition can therefore be summarized in three movements:

Chatbot → Agent
Response → Action
Conversation → Continuity

This transformation changes the security problem as well.

A chatbot primarily produces information. An agent can produce actions. Once an AI system has memory, tools, permissions, and persistent tasks, the central question is no longer simply, “What answer will the model produce?” It becomes: What can the system do when it has memory, tools, permissions, and time? That is a fundamentally broader cybersecurity question.

Recursive Self-Improvement

An even more consequential possibility is that AI may increasingly participate in improving AI itself. This possibility is commonly described as recursive self-improvement (RSI).

Recent research provides early examples of partial automation in this direction. Ishibashi et al. (2025), for example, developed a Self-Developing framework in which a large language model generates and evaluates algorithms intended to improve model performance. Their experiments demonstrated improvements on selected mathematical reasoning tasks.

Such research does not establish uncontrolled recursive self-improvement, nor does it demonstrate that a technological singularity is imminent. It does, however, show that portions of the AI development process can increasingly be automated. The conceptual feedback loop is straightforward: AI → better algorithms → better AI → better algorithms → better AI.

If increasingly capable systems participate in the creation, testing, optimization, and deployment of subsequent systems, the traditional distinction between using AI and developing AI may become increasingly blurred. This possibility calls for neither panic nor complacency. It calls for rigorous evaluation, monitoring, controlled experimentation, and safeguards proportionate to demonstrated capabilities.

The New AI Safety Problem

AI safety becomes more complicated as capability expands beyond language. OpenAI’s safety documentation reports that Astra reached a “Critical” cybersecurity capability threshold under its Preparedness Framework and describes safeguards involving isolation, monitoring, checkpoint encryption, and alignment evaluations (OpenAI, 2026b). These developments illustrate a broader change in the security boundary.

The question is no longer simply: Can the model generate harmful information? It is increasingly: What happens when the AI system can remember, reason, use tools, access systems, and act autonomously?

A system with no persistent memory may make an isolated mistake. A persistent agent can retain information, repeat actions, learn from previous outcomes, and continue operating. Consequently, AI security must increasingly address the entire agentic system, including its model, memory, tools, permissions, external environment, and human oversight.

This is particularly important for cybersecurity. An AI system capable of discovering vulnerabilities may simultaneously become a powerful defensive instrument and a potential source of new risks. The distinction between capability and safe deployment becomes increasingly important.

The Memory Economy

The economic implications are equally significant. The AI industry initially appeared to be a competition centered primarily on models and GPUs. It soon became clear that data centers, networking, electricity, and cooling were strategic components of AI capacity. Memory is now becoming another central element.

Longer context requires more memory management. Persistent agents require more state. Greater inference workloads require more bandwidth. Large-scale AI applications require additional storage and networking. The emerging AI economy can therefore be understood as a compute–memory–network–energy economy.

For semiconductor-producing countries, this creates an important strategic opportunity and challenge. Competitiveness will depend not simply on producing more chips, but on participating across a larger AI infrastructure chain: Semiconductors → Memory → Networking → Data Centers → Energy → Models → Agents → Applications. The significance of memory extends beyond individual semiconductor companies. It concerns the architecture of the emerging digital economy.

From Data to Wisdom

For decades, the evolution of information technology was often summarized as: Data → Information → Knowledge → Intelligence. The emergence of persistent AI suggests a possible extension: Data → Information → Knowledge → Intelligence → Memory → Wisdom.

The final transition, however, cannot be achieved simply by increasing model size or memory capacity. Memory is the accumulation of experience. Wisdom is the responsible interpretation of experience.

AI may eventually remember vastly more than an individual human. It may search more widely, calculate faster, and maintain longer chains of activity. But none of these capabilities automatically determines what should be done. That question remains connected to human judgment, values, institutions, and responsibility.

Human Agency in the Age of Persistent AI

The most important issue surrounding increasingly capable AI may therefore be human agency. AI systems may eventually perform tasks that once required teams of specialists. They may diagnose patterns, write software, conduct research, manage infrastructure, and coordinate complex workflows. Yet capability should not automatically become authority.

Humans must continue to determine goals, establish boundaries, authorize consequential actions, and maintain mechanisms for auditing and intervention. This principle becomes particularly important when AI systems have persistent memory. Memory can make an agent more useful, but it can also make errors persistent. A mistaken assumption stored in memory can influence later decisions. An inappropriate instruction can potentially be carried forward. A compromised memory system can become a new attack surface.

The future of AI security will therefore require attention not only to model alignment, but also to memory integrity, provenance, access control, state management, and human oversight.

What Should AI Remember?

The story of Astra is ultimately larger than a benchmark score or a semiconductor market reaction. It represents a transition in the architecture of artificial intelligence. AI is moving from systems that primarily respond toward systems that increasingly remember, act, and continue. That transition may prove as important as the earlier movement from rule-based systems to machine learning and from machine learning to generative AI.

The evidence does not require us to conclude that AGI has arrived or that humanity is approaching an inevitable technological catastrophe. A more useful conclusion is that frontier AI is becoming increasingly capable of solving unfamiliar problems, preserving state, using tools, and performing complex multistep tasks (ARC Prize, 2026; OpenAI, 2026a).

The central question is consequently changing. The first generation of AI asked: Can machines compute? The next asked: Can machines learn? The emerging generation asks: Can machines remember, reason, act, and improve? And the question for humanity is one step beyond: Can we build increasingly intelligent machines while preserving human agency, accountability, and wisdom?

The future of AI may depend increasingly on memory. But the future of humanity may depend on something more difficult: what we choose to remember, what we choose to forget, and what we choose to do with what we remember. +++

References

ARC Prize. (2026, September 3). OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3. https://arcprize.org/blog/astra

Ishibashi, Y., Yano, T., & Oyamada, M. (2025). Can large language models invent algorithms to improve themselves? Algorithm discovery for recursive self-improvement through reinforcement learning. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2025, 10332–10363. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.519

Lee, J., Hwang, S.-W., Qiao, A., Campos, D., Yao, Z., & He, Y. (2025). TALE: Token-adaptive low-rank KVCache approximation with reconstruction elimination. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13, 1298–1318. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl.a.39

Liu, W., Luan, J., Wang, B., & Wang, W. (2025). TailorKV: A hybrid framework for long-context inference via tailored KV cache optimization. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, 20340–20359. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1043

OpenAI. (2026a, September 3). GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence. https://openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra/

OpenAI. (2026b, September 3). Safety overview: GPT-6 Astra. https://openai.com/index/safety-overview-gpt-6-astra/

Zhou, X., Wang, W., Zeng, M., Guo, J., Liu, X., Shen, L., Wang, W., & Ding, L. (2025). DynamicKV: Task-aware adaptive KV cache compression for long context LLMs. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 8042–8057. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.426

AI가 기억하기 시작할 때

기억, 지능, 그리고 AI 시대의 새로운 인프라

초록

인공지능의 급속한 발전은 우리가 기계 지능을 이해하는 방식을 변화시키고 있다. 최근의 프런티어 AI는 더욱 뛰어난 추론 및 문제 해결 능력뿐만 아니라, 문맥을 유지하고 외부 도구를 사용하며 장기간에 걸쳐 복잡한 작업을 수행하는 능력까지 보여주고 있다. 특히 OpenAI의 GPT-6 아스트라(Astra)가 ARC-AGI-3에서 기록한 것으로 보고된 성능은 지속적인 추론 상태와 기억의 역할에 대한 관심을 불러일으켰다. 그러나 이 99.9%라는 결과는 ARC Prize의 표준(Standard) 평가 방식이 아니라 Provider Adapter 구성에서 얻어진 결과라는 점에서 신중한 해석이 필요하다(ARC Prize, 2026). 이러한 차이는 AI의 능력이 단순한 연산량뿐만 아니라 계산, 기억, 문맥, 도구, 지속적인 상태 관리의 상호작용에 점점 더 의존하고 있음을 보여준다. AI 시스템이 더욱 에이전트화되면서 고대역폭 메모리(HBM), 저장장치, 네트워크 및 데이터센터 인프라에 대한 수요도 확대되고 있다. 동시에 지속적인 기억과 자율적 행동은 AI 안전, 사이버보안, 거버넌스 및 의미 있는 인간 통제에 새로운 과제를 제기한다. 본 수필은 AI의 다음 단계가 단순히 더 높은 지능으로의 전환이 아니라 지속적 기계 지능(persistent machine intelligence) 으로의 전환으로 이해되어야 한다고 주장한다. 따라서 핵심 질문은 기계가 생각할 수 있는가에만 있지 않다. 기계가 기억하고, 행동하고, 학습하고, 스스로 개선하는 과정에서도 인간이 의미 있는 책임과 통제를 유지할 수 있는가가 더욱 중요한 질문이 되고 있다.

핵심어: 인공지능, AI 에이전트, 기계 기억, 지속적 AI, KV 캐시, HBM, 재귀적 자기개선, AI 안전, 사이버보안, 인간 통제

99.9%가 의미하는 것

인공지능은 오랫동안 연산(computation) 과 연결되어 있었다. 우리는 더 큰 모델, 더 빠른 프로세서, 더 많은 학습 데이터, 더 높은 컴퓨팅 능력을 통해 AI의 발전을 측정해 왔다. 그러나 점점 더 강력해지는 AI 에이전트의 등장과 함께 또 하나의 자원이 중요해지고 있다. 바로 기억(memory) 이다. 최근의 프런티어 AI는 정보를 유지하고, 도구를 사용하며, 소프트웨어를 조작하고, 장기간에 걸쳐 복잡한 작업을 지속적으로 수행하는 능력을 보여주고 있다. 이러한 변화는 AI의 다음 단계가 단순히 기계가 얼마나 빠르게 계산하는가뿐 아니라, 정보를 얼마나 효과적으로 기억하고, 조직하고, 재사용하는가에 달려 있을 수 있음을 보여준다.

GPT-6 아스트라의 보고된 성능은 이러한 변화를 잘 보여준다. OpenAI는 아스트라가 특정 Provider Adapter 평가 구성에서 ARC-AGI-3 99.9%, FrontierMath Tier 4 98%를 기록했으며, 컴퓨터 사용, 소프트웨어 엔지니어링, 사이버보안 및 기타 전문 업무에서도 크게 향상된 능력을 보였다고 발표했다(OpenAI, 2026a). 이러한 수치는 자연스럽게 AI가 범용인공지능(AGI)을 향한 중요한 경계를 넘어선 것이 아닌가 하는 인상을 준다. 그러나 이 수치는 신중하게 해석할 필요가 있다. ARC Prize는 표준 평가 방식에서 62.7%를 기록한 반면, 99.9%는 불투명한 추론 상태를 보존하고 문맥 압축을 사용하는 Provider Adapter 구성에서 얻어진 결과라고 보고했다(ARC Prize, 2026). 또한 ARC Prize는 ARC-AGI-3에서 높은 점수를 얻었다는 사실만으로 AGI가 달성되었다고 해석해서는 안 된다고 지적한다.

이러한 차이는 매우 중요하다. 우리는 숫자 자체보다 그 숫자를 만들어낸 조건에 주목해야 하기 때문이다. 추론 상태를 보존하는 것만으로도 성능이 크게 향상될 수 있다면, 기억과 문맥 관리는 단순한 보조 기능이 아니다. 그것은 기계 지능의 실제 능력을 구성하는 중요한 요소가 될 수 있다.

연산에서 기억으로

이러한 변화는 AI 모델을 넘어 훨씬 넓은 영역에 영향을 미친다. 장시간의 추론 과정에서 대규모 언어모델은 이전 상호작용과 중간 계산 결과에 관한 정보를 유지해야 한다. 대표적인 메커니즘 가운데 하나가 키-값(KV) 캐시이다. KV 캐시는 생성 과정에서 재사용할 수 있는 정보를 저장한다. 문맥의 길이가 증가하고 AI 에이전트가 더욱 장기적인 작업을 수행하면서 KV 캐시의 용량과 메모리 대역폭은 점점 더 중요해지고 있다. 이에 따라 최근 연구에서는 KV 캐시 압축, 적응형 관리 및 기타 메모리 효율화 기술이 활발하게 연구되고 있다(Lee et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025). 이는 AI 인프라 경쟁이 단순한 GPU 경쟁을 넘어 메모리 경쟁으로도 발전하고 있음을 보여준다.

전통적인 컴퓨터는 더 빠르게 계산할수록 더욱 유용해진다. 반면 AI 에이전트는 자신이 이미 무엇을 했는지를 기억할 수 있을 때 더욱 강력해진다. 매번 이전의 문맥을 다시 구성해야 하는 시스템과 관련 상태를 효율적으로 보존하고 검색할 수 있는 시스템은 근본적으로 다른 운영 비용과 성능 특성을 갖는다.

그 결과 AI 인프라에 대한 요구도 확대되고 있다. AI 시스템은 가속기, HBM, DRAM, 기업용 저장장치, 네트워크, 전력, 냉각 시스템을 필요로 한다. AI 추론이 더욱 길어지고 지속적으로 이루어질수록 메모리 용량과 대역폭은 시스템 성능의 핵심 요소가 된다. 따라서 AI 데이터센터는 단순히 연산 자원이 집중된 시설에서 컴퓨팅·메모리·네트워크·저장장치·에너지가 통합된 생태계로 변화하고 있다.

기억은 지능이 아니다

그러나 한 가지 중요한 구분이 필요하다. 기억은 지능과 동일하지 않다. ARC-AGI의 결과는 기억만으로 성능 차이가 발생했다는 것을 증명하지 않는다. 두 평가 방식은 서로 다른 조건을 적용하며, 그중 하나는 추론 상태와 문맥을 보존한다(ARC Prize, 2026). 이 결과가 보다 분명하게 보여주는 것은 지속적인 상태와 문맥 관리가 AI 시스템의 실제 능력에 상당한 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 사실이다.

인간의 지능에서도 마찬가지다. 어떤 사람은 수천 개의 사실을 기억하면서도 그것을 제대로 이해하지 못할 수 있다. 어떤 사회는 엄청난 역사 기록을 보유하고 있으면서도 과거의 실수를 반복할 수 있다. 기억은 연속성을 만들어주지만, 연속성이 자동적으로 판단력을 만들어내는 것은 아니다.

이를 간단히 표현하면 다음과 같다. 기억은 지능을 강화할 수 있지만, 기억만으로 지혜가 보장되는 것은 아니다. AI가 더욱 긴 기억과 지속적인 상호작용 능력을 갖게 될수록 이 구분은 더욱 중요해질 것이다.

지속적 AI 에이전트의 등장

전통적인 챗봇은 질문을 기다리고 답변을 제공한다. 반면 새롭게 등장하는 AI 에이전트는 목표를 추구할 수 있다. 웹을 탐색하고, 소프트웨어를 조작하며, 프로그램을 작성하고 테스트하고, 파일을 처리하며, 여러 단계의 작업을 점점 더 적은 인간 개입으로 수행할 수 있다. OpenAI는 아스트라를 더욱 복잡한 컴퓨터 사용과 전문 업무를 수행할 수 있는 시스템으로 설명한다(OpenAI, 2026a).

이러한 변화를 세 가지 전환으로 요약할 수 있다.

챗봇 → 에이전트
응답 → 행동
대화 → 연속성

이 변화는 보안 문제의 성격도 바꾼다.

챗봇은 주로 정보를 제공한다. 에이전트는 행동을 수행할 수 있다. AI 시스템이 기억, 도구, 권한 및 지속적인 작업 능력을 갖게 되면 핵심 질문은 더 이상 “모델이 어떤 답을 생성할 것인가?”에 머물지 않는다. 이제 더욱 중요한 질문은 다음과 같다. “AI 시스템이 기억과 도구, 권한과 시간을 갖게 되었을 때 무엇을 할 수 있는가?” 이것은 훨씬 더 광범위한 사이버보안 문제이다.

재귀적 자기개선의 가능성

더욱 중요한 가능성은 AI가 점차 AI 자체를 개선하는 과정에 참여할 수 있다는 것이다. 이를 흔히 재귀적 자기개선(Recursive Self-Improvement, RSI) 이라고 부른다. 최근 연구는 이러한 방향으로 부분적으로 자동화된 사례를 보여준다. 예를 들어 Ishibashi et al. (2025)은 LLM이 모델의 성능을 향상시키기 위한 알고리즘을 생성하고 평가하는 Self-Developing 프레임워크를 개발했다. 그들의 실험에서는 특정 수학적 추론 과제에서 성능 향상이 나타났다.

이러한 연구가 통제되지 않는 재귀적 자기개선이나 기술적 특이점의 임박함을 입증하는 것은 아니다. 그러나 AI 개발 과정의 일부가 점점 자동화될 수 있음을 보여준다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 개념적인 피드백 루프는 단순하다: AI → 더 나은 알고리즘 → 더 나은 AI → 더 나은 알고리즘 → 더 나은 AI.

점점 더 강력해지는 AI가 차세대 AI의 개발, 테스트, 최적화 및 배포 과정에 참여하게 된다면 AI를 사용하는 것과 AI를 개발하는 것 사이의 전통적인 경계는 점차 흐려질 수 있다. 이러한 가능성에 필요한 것은 공포도 낙관도 아니다. 필요한 것은 엄격한 평가, 지속적인 모니터링, 통제된 실험, 그리고 실제 능력에 비례하는 안전장치이다.

새로운 AI 안전 문제

AI의 능력이 언어를 넘어 확대되면서 AI 안전 문제도 더욱 복잡해지고 있다. OpenAI의 안전 관련 자료에 따르면 아스트라는 Preparedness Framework에서 “Critical” 사이버보안 능력 기준에 도달했으며, 격리, 모니터링, 체크포인트 암호화 및 정렬 평가 등을 포함한 안전장치를 적용하고 있다(OpenAI, 2026b). 이는 보안의 경계가 변화하고 있음을 보여준다.

이제 질문은 단순히 다음과 같지 않다. “모델이 유해한 정보를 생성할 수 있는가?” 더 중요한 질문은 다음과 같다. “AI 시스템이 기억하고, 추론하고, 도구를 사용하고, 시스템에 접근하고, 자율적으로 행동할 수 있다면 어떤 일이 발생하는가?”

지속적인 기억이 없는 시스템은 하나의 실수를 할 수 있다. 그러나 지속적인 에이전트는 정보를 보존하고, 행동을 반복하며, 이전 결과를 바탕으로 행동을 수정하고, 작업을 계속할 수 있다. 따라서 AI 보안은 점차 전체 에이전트 시스템을 대상으로 해야 한다. 여기에는 모델뿐 아니라 기억, 도구, 권한, 외부 환경, 그리고 인간의 감독이 포함된다.

기억의 경제

경제적 의미도 중요하다. 처음 AI 산업은 주로 모델과 GPU를 중심으로 한 경쟁처럼 보였다. 그러나 곧 데이터센터, 네트워크, 전력 및 냉각 역시 AI 역량을 결정하는 전략적 요소라는 사실이 분명해졌다. 이제 메모리 역시 핵심 요소로 부상하고 있다.

더 긴 문맥은 더 많은 메모리 관리를 요구한다. 지속적인 에이전트는 더 많은 상태 정보를 필요로 한다. 더 많은 추론 작업은 더 높은 메모리 대역폭을 요구한다. 대규모 AI 애플리케이션은 추가적인 저장장치와 네트워크를 필요로 한다. 따라서 새로운 AI 경제는 컴퓨팅–메모리–네트워크–에너지 경제로 이해할 수 있다.

반도체 생산국가들에게 이는 중요한 기회인 동시에 새로운 도전이다. 경쟁력은 단순히 더 많은 반도체를 생산하는 데 그치지 않는다. 다음과 같은 보다 넓은 AI 인프라 가치사슬에 얼마나 참여할 수 있는지가 중요해진다: 반도체 → 메모리 → 네트워크 → 데이터센터 → 에너지 → 모델 → 에이전트 → 애플리케이션. 따라서 메모리의 중요성은 개별 반도체 기업의 문제를 넘어, 새롭게 형성되는 디지털 경제의 구조와 연결된다.

데이터에서 지혜로

지난 수십 년 동안 정보기술의 발전은 흔히 다음과 같이 표현되어 왔다: 데이터 → 정보 → 지식 → 지능. 지속적 AI의 등장은 여기에 새로운 단계를 추가할 가능성을 보여준다: 데이터 → 정보 → 지식 → 지능 → 기억 → 지혜. 그러나 마지막 단계는 단순히 모델의 크기나 메모리 용량을 증가시킨다고 얻을 수 있는 것이 아니다. 기억은 경험의 축적이다. 지혜는 경험을 책임 있게 해석하는 능력이다.

AI는 결국 한 명의 인간보다 훨씬 많은 것을 기억할 수 있을 것이다. 더 넓게 검색하고, 더 빠르게 계산하며, 더 긴 작업을 유지할 수도 있다. 그러나 이러한 능력만으로 무엇을 해야 하는가가 자동으로 결정되는 것은 아니다. 그 질문은 여전히 인간의 판단, 가치, 제도, 그리고 책임과 연결되어 있다.

지속적 AI 시대의 인간 주체성

따라서 더욱 강력해지는 AI와 관련하여 가장 중요한 문제 가운데 하나는 인간의 주체성(human agency) 일 수 있다. AI 시스템은 앞으로 한때 전문가 집단이 수행해야 했던 업무를 수행할 수 있을 것이다. 패턴을 분석하고, 소프트웨어를 작성하고, 연구를 수행하고, 인프라를 관리하며, 복잡한 작업 흐름을 조정할 수도 있다. 그러나 능력이 자동적으로 권한(authority) 이 되어서는 안 된다.

인간은 계속해서 목표를 결정하고, 경계를 설정하고, 중요한 행동을 승인하며, 감사와 개입을 위한 장치를 유지해야 한다. 특히 AI가 지속적인 기억을 갖게 되면 이 원칙은 더욱 중요해진다. 기억은 에이전트를 더욱 유용하게 만들 수 있지만 동시에 오류를 지속시키는 원인이 될 수도 있다. 잘못된 가정이 기억에 저장되면 이후의 판단에도 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 부적절한 명령이 계속 유지될 수도 있다. 기억 시스템이 공격받는다면 새로운 공격 표면이 형성될 수도 있다. 따라서 미래의 AI 보안은 모델 정렬(model alignment) 뿐만 아니라 기억의 무결성, 데이터 출처와 계보(provenance), 접근통제, 상태 관리 및 인간 감독까지 고려해야 한다.

AI는 무엇을 기억해야 하는가?

아스트라의 이야기는 하나의 벤치마크 점수나 반도체 시장의 반응보다 훨씬 크다. 그것은 인공지능의 구조 자체가 변화하고 있음을 보여준다. AI는 단순히 응답하는 시스템에서 점점 더 기억하고, 행동하고, 작업을 지속하는 시스템으로 이동하고 있다. 이러한 변화는 규칙 기반 시스템에서 머신러닝으로, 그리고 머신러닝에서 생성형 AI로 이동했던 이전의 변화만큼 중요할 수 있다.

현재의 증거만으로 AGI가 이미 도래했다고 결론 내릴 필요도 없고, 인류가 불가피한 기술적 재앙을 향해 가고 있다고 결론 내릴 필요도 없다. 보다 유용한 결론은 훨씬 구체적이다. 프런티어 AI는 낯선 문제를 해결하고, 상태를 보존하고, 도구를 사용하며, 복잡한 여러 단계의 작업을 수행하는 능력을 빠르게 확대하고 있다(ARC Prize, 2026; OpenAI, 2026a). 따라서 핵심 질문도 변화하고 있다. 첫 번째 AI 세대의 질문은: “기계가 계산할 수 있는가?” 다음 질문은: “기계가 학습할 수 있는가?” 새로운 세대의 질문은: “기계가 기억하고, 추론하고, 행동하고, 개선할 수 있는가?”

그리고 인류가 던져야 할 질문은 그보다 한 단계 더 나아가야 한다. “우리는 인간의 주체성, 책임, 그리고 지혜를 보존하면서 점점 더 지능적인 기계를 만들 수 있는가?” AI의 미래는 점점 더 기억에 의존할 것이다. 그러나 인류의 미래는 그보다 더 어려운 문제에 달려 있을지도 모른다. 우리가 무엇을 기억할 것인가, 무엇을 잊을 것인가, 그리고 기억한 것을 어떻게 사용할 것인가. +++

참고문헌

ARC Prize. (2026, September 3). OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3. https://arcprize.org/blog/astra

Ishibashi, Y., Yano, T., & Oyamada, M. (2025). Can large language models invent algorithms to improve themselves? Algorithm discovery for recursive self-improvement through reinforcement learning. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2025, 10332–10363. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.519

Lee, J., Hwang, S.-W., Qiao, A., Campos, D., Yao, Z., & He, Y. (2025). TALE: Token-adaptive low-rank KVCache approximation with reconstruction elimination. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13, 1298–1318. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl.a.39

Liu, W., Luan, J., Wang, B., & Wang, W. (2025). TailorKV: A hybrid framework for long-context inference via tailored KV cache optimization. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, 20340–20359. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1043

OpenAI. (2026a, September 3). GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence. https://openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra/

OpenAI. (2026b, September 3). Safety overview: GPT-6 Astra. https://openai.com/index/safety-overview-gpt-6-astra/

Zhou, X., Wang, W., Zeng, M., Guo, J., Liu, X., Shen, L., Wang, W., & Ding, L. (2025). DynamicKV: Task-aware adaptive KV cache compression for long context LLMs. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 8042–8057. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.426

2026년 9월 30일

{솔티}

Prof. Dr. Young Choi (Editor-in-Chief) — Regent University

Full list of his K-GSP columns:

https://www.k-gsp.org/t/columnist_young_choi

Full list of his Books at Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0DMZ5S6R7/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=381619c7-0df9-44f4-b943-275bf03d5723&ccs_id=3f36c38c-ba92-4dcf-a124-af49ce39a878

Young B. Choi is a Professor in the Department of Engineering & Computer Science at Regent University. He published 38 books with ‘Selected Readings in Cybersecurity’ (2018) (over 800 copies archived globally at university/college libraries around the world) and ‘Cybersecurity Applications and Artificial Intelligence’ (2023) available in seven major world languages. He proposed the world’s first global and universal telecommunications “Service Order Handling (SOH)” Model (T-SOH Model) (1995) with Dr. Adrian Tang. With this innovative research work, he received the IEEE NOMS ’96 Best Paper Award and became the first recipient of the Outstanding Contribution Award of the TeleManagement Forum in 1998. His research areas include Natural Language Processing-focused AI, AI-applied cybersecurity, network and telecom service management, and Korean studies on Gani Choi Rip’s Jeonggwan (靜觀: Quiet Contemplation) philosophy and Shilhak ( 實學: Practical Learning).

© K-GSP (K-Global Scholars and Professionals) Forum. All rights reserved. 2026.

Suggested Citation:

Choi, Y. B. (2026, September 30). When AI Learns to Remember: Memory, Intelligence, and the New Infrastructure of the AI Era. K-GSP.