本文試圖展望以「作為運動的中國學」為動力而貫通學術制度內外的批判性中國研究的（不）可能性。批判性中國研究應該具備以下幾個條件：第一，具有分科橫斷性指向；第二，要超越將古典中國與現實中國進行分離的二分法；第三，在與當代的中國現實和主流思維體系保持批判性距離的同時，還將它當作重構我們對現實生活社會認識的契機；最後，要解構中國中心主義。為了找到具備以上條件的中國學的可能性，本文主要考察了人文學領域中的韓國中國學的譜系。結果發現「作為制度的中國學」和「作為運動的中國學」經過相互競爭、相互滲透的動態性過程，積累了我們對中國的認識，而且作為其一部分，批判性中國研究應對著時代的變化，斷斷續續地延續著。朝鮮王朝的學者們在生產現實中國相關知識的同時，重新解釋中國古典並重構既有價值觀和世界觀；日本殖民時期，學者們在用科學方法將古典中國進行系統化的同時，並著眼於現代中國的文學運動， 重新發現中國且將之視為借鏡自主解析朝鮮；冷戰時期的學者們也在制度內外辛苦積累了探索中國的經驗。進行批判性中國研究就是讓這些人文學遺產、成果和經驗得以新貌重新復活。最後，本文在展望批判性中國研究的方向時，提出了它該具備的條件及作為其基礎的認識框架的兩個方向（雙重性周邊的視角和全球本土學）。

This paper aims to explore the (im)possibility of conducting critical Chinese studies and research which fully encompass the requirements inside and outside an academic institution when driven by the concept of “Chinese studies as a movement”. Critical Chinese studies need to fulfill the following requirements:(1) be transdisciplinary; (2) overcome the dividing dichotomy of the subject into classical China and modern China; (3) keep some critical distance from the mainstream way of thinking and the reality of modern China while reconstructing the perception of the society we live in; and (4) deconstruct the Sinocentrism. To find if such studies are viable, the history of Chinese studies in Korea was examined with a focus on the humanities. As a result, we examined the accumulation of our knowledge of China during the dynamic process in which “Chinese studies as an institution” and “Chinese studies as a movement” competed with and affected each other. As part of this, it was also discovered that the critical Chinese studies was sustained, albeit intermittently, in response to the changes of time. There are three main points to consider. The heritage left behind by the scholars of Joseon who produced the knowledge on contemporary China and re-interpreted classical China to reconstruct the existing values and viewpoints of the world; the experience of systematically organizing classical China using a scientific approach under the rule of colonial Japan while, inspired by the literary movement of contemporary China, rediscovering China and using that perspective as a mirror to look at Korea; and the experience that our forerunners toiled to gain inside and outside the institution in the Cold War era-all of these come together to make up today’s critical Chinese studies. Lastly, the paper looked at the future direction that critical Chinese studies should take and proposed two directions (a dual peripheral perspective and “Glocalogy”) that should form the basis of the epistemic framework of our critical Chinese studies.