1880년대 전반 조선 개화지식인들의 ‘아시아 연대론’인식 연구

Abstract

Since the mid 19th century, northeast Asian society has confronted the so-called crisis of ‘the Growing Influence of the West on the East(西勢東漸)’. The traditional Sinocentric order collapsed and the modern international order reorganized the society quickly. Amidst this situation, intellectuals in Japan and China began to advocate the ‘Solidarity of Asia’, which means to defend the invasion of the Western powers and to establish wealth and power through solidarity among three Eastern countries, and the enlightened intellectuals in Korea were more than glad to act in concert with this assertion. As a representative organization established for the advocacy of ‘the Theory of the Solidarity of Asia’, Heungaheui(興亞會) was found in Tokyo, Japan on February 13, 1880 with the matrix of Jinasa(振亞 社), which had been established mainly by Sone Doshitora(曾根俊虎) in the spring of 1877. Also, Heungaheui drew no small amount of attention also from enlightened intellectuals in Korea. In January 1883, Heungaheui changed its name to the Asian Association and pursued its activities. Then, it was absorbed and merged into Donga Dongmunheui beginning in March 1900. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’ advocated by Heungaheui had no small variation within the organization. A‘ systemic Asia coalition ideology’appeared which was aimed at the coalition between the governments, and there also existed a ‘reformative Asia coalition ideology’that aspired to a mutual coalition between reformative governments through the democratic reformation by the then despotic government. Also, there emerged a solidarity ideology from the perspective of the guiding ideology against China based on out-of-Asianism sentiment, in the organization. Figures, who visited Japan during the early 1880s, mostly participated in the Heungaheui meeting or maintained a close contact with Heungaheui members. Also, they responded positively to the ‘Solidarity of Asia’. Enlightened intellectuals in Korea could easily favor the ‘Solidarity of Asia’because its logical structure was very similar to that of the traditional ‘worldview of the Sinocentric international order’. The logical structure of the‘ Solidarity of Asia’is different from the hierarchal Sinocentric order as three countries in northeast Asia were horizontally coupled. However, it is analogous to the Sinocentric order in that it established an oriental value as a target to guard. The ‘Solidarity of Asia’was characterized by the notion of a transitional international order, which appeared during the shift from the notion of a pre-modern Sinocentric international order to that of a modern international order. This means that enlightened intellectuals in Joseon were heavily influenced by the Heungaheui activity of legation in the Ching Dynasty, in Japan, as well as a thinking based on the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. Legation staffs from the Ching Dynasty actively joined Heungaheui independently and stressed the need for solidarity among the three countries. This prepared an opportunity for enlightened intellectuals in Korea to participate in the gathering of Heungaheui, shaking off a certain level of their doubts about Japan. The existing perspective viewed the ‘Solidarity of Asia’as an invader’s logic proposed for hiding the invasive nature of Japan to Asia. Subsequently, the attention of the Korean people was commonly denounced simply as the ‘logic of Japanophilism’or the result of ‘ignorance about the invasive nature’. Nevertheless, it was rather so natural that enlightened intellectuals in Korea, who were seeking to overcome this international crisis during this period, became interested in the‘ Solidarity of Asia’. This was because the‘ Solidarity of Asia’was one of the diverse options available for Korea, which faced the international crisis of‘ the Growing Influence of the West on the East’, to choose as a lesser power. However, the ‘Solidarity of Asia’assumed its subjects resisted the invasion of the West, not‘ as a country or nation’but ‘as the East or one race’. Thus, it bore a limitation such that it was hard for the countries to take appropriate actions when any one of the countries in solidarity was transformed as an invading force. It is deemed to be ‘the ideology of Mutual Prosperity of Three Eastern Countries’during the Great Korean Empire period, which was a trend that well-demonstrated such a limitation on Asian solidarism.