근대 중국의 민족제국주의와 단일민족론
The National-Imperialism and the Logic of Unitary Nation in Modern China
0
조회
0
다운로드
32
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article investigates the perception of nation in modern China, reveals the logic of empire internalized therein, and explores the way to examine it. Both the Constitutional Monarchists including Liang Qichao and Republican Revolutionists including Sun Yatsen perceived nation as culture-nation, which is close to the concept of ethnos today. This perception, however, contrasted with the multi-ethnicity of the Qing Empire, which caused both of the groups to establish the concept of one state- nation that includes all the culture-nations within the empire’s boundary, and they regarded the assimilation and integration of various nations as natural in order to achieve one great nation. As a result, the term “the Chinese Nation(Zhonghua Minzu)” has been coined and used since 1905. Even the revolutionists, whose slogan was anti-Manchurian, made it clear before the revolution in 1911 that the revolution was not an ethnic struggle to seclude Manchurians, but a political struggle to overthrow Manchurian government. In their perception of nation, the right to form a country did not belong to culture-nation, but only to the Chinese Nation which is a state nation. Thus, the state- nation inevitably implied imperialism which aims to combine various culture-nations. This is why Liang Qichao and Sun Yatsen argued that China should implement national-imperialistic policy as Europe and America did. The Chinese Empire in the premodern era had once allowed culture-nations political autonomy on the basis of their own identity, but from now those nations had to be assimilated and integrated as one nation to form the Chinese Nation Empire. This is where national-imperialism boils down to unitary nation. Nonetheless, Chinese people did not realize that such idea had been internalized in their perception because of the influence of antiimperialistic nationalism and sino-centric imperialism in the premodern era. It is necessary to identify ethnic group, which is close to cultural nation, with nation in order to examine and disclose the internalized imperialism. The notion of state nation, which is based on popular sovereignty, used to serve as a logical basis justifying the expansion of empire, oppressing the ethnicity of minorities. It stands to reason that in the 21st century where popular sovereignty is commonplace, the notion of culture-nation, which embraces cultural diversity, will be used as an intellectual weapon to disclose and examine the repressivism of the notion of state-nation.
Abstract
This article investigates the perception of nation in modern China, reveals the logic of empire internalized therein, and explores the way to examine it. Both the Constitutional Monarchists including Liang Qichao and Republican Revolutionists including Sun Yatsen perceived nation as culture-nation, which is close to the concept of ethnos today. This perception, however, contrasted with the multi-ethnicity of the Qing Empire, which caused both of the groups to establish the concept of one state- nation that includes all the culture-nations within the empire’s boundary, and they regarded the assimilation and integration of various nations as natural in order to achieve one great nation. As a result, the term “the Chinese Nation(Zhonghua Minzu)” has been coined and used since 1905. Even the revolutionists, whose slogan was anti-Manchurian, made it clear before the revolution in 1911 that the revolution was not an ethnic struggle to seclude Manchurians, but a political struggle to overthrow Manchurian government. In their perception of nation, the right to form a country did not belong to culture-nation, but only to the Chinese Nation which is a state nation. Thus, the state- nation inevitably implied imperialism which aims to combine various culture-nations. This is why Liang Qichao and Sun Yatsen argued that China should implement national-imperialistic policy as Europe and America did. The Chinese Empire in the premodern era had once allowed culture-nations political autonomy on the basis of their own identity, but from now those nations had to be assimilated and integrated as one nation to form the Chinese Nation Empire. This is where national-imperialism boils down to unitary nation. Nonetheless, Chinese people did not realize that such idea had been internalized in their perception because of the influence of antiimperialistic nationalism and sino-centric imperialism in the premodern era. It is necessary to identify ethnic group, which is close to cultural nation, with nation in order to examine and disclose the internalized imperialism. The notion of state nation, which is based on popular sovereignty, used to serve as a logical basis justifying the expansion of empire, oppressing the ethnicity of minorities. It stands to reason that in the 21st century where popular sovereignty is commonplace, the notion of culture-nation, which embraces cultural diversity, will be used as an intellectual weapon to disclose and examine the repressivism of the notion of state-nation.
참고문헌 (39)
- 김광억, "종족과민족:그단일과보편의신화를넘어서" (2005), 아카넷
- 박상수, "동아시아근대‘네이션’개념의수용과변용" (2005), 고구려연구재단
- 백영서, "동아시아의귀환" (2000), 창작과비평사
- 유용태, "환호속의경종:동아시아역사인식과역사교육의성찰" (2006), 휴머니스트
- 유장근, "근대중국의지역사회와국가권력" (2004), 신서원
- Anthony D., Smith, "세계화 시대의 민족과 민족주의" (1977), 남지
- Ernest, Gellner, "민족과민족주의" (1988), 예하
- 馬戎, "民族社會學" (2004), 北京大學出版社
- 松本眞澄, "中國民族政策之硏究-以淸末至1945年的民族論爲中心" (2003), 民族出版社
- 歷史硏究所編輯部, "漢民族形成問題討論集" (1957), 三聯書店
- 朱況源, "同盟會的革命理論:‘民報’個案硏究" (1985), 中央硏究院近代史硏究所
- 山本有造編, "帝國の硏究" (2003), 名古屋大學出版會
- 王柯, "20世紀中國の國家建設と”民族”" (2006), 東京大學出版會
- 坂元ひろ子, "中國民族主義の神話" (2004), 岩波書店
- Chow, Kai-wing, "Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia" (2004), The University of Michigan Press
- Fitzgerald, John, "Awakening China:Politics, Culture, and Class in the Nationalist Revolution" (1999), Stanford University Press
- Zhao, Suisheng, "A Nation`-`State by Construction" (2004), Stanford University Press
- 고유경, "'문화민족'과 '국가민족' 사이에서-통일 이전 독일 민족형성의 길-", 이화사학연구, (30), pp.653~670 (2003), 이화사학연구소
- 金衡鍾, "淸末革命派의排滿論과五族共和論", 中國近現代史硏究, 12 (2001)
- 朴章培, "‘中華民族’槪念의 形成에 대한 小考-淸末民國前期(1899-1928)를 중심으로", 석사, 사학과, pp.1992
- 朴章培, "近現代中國의歷史敎育과中華民族整體性 1", 中國近現代史硏究, 19 (2003)
- 裴京漢, "신해혁명직후몽골독립에대한孫文과革命派의대응", 人文科學, 30 (2000), 성균관대학교
- 柳鏞泰, "中華民族論과 東北地政學:“東北工程”의 논리근거", 東洋史學硏究, 93 (2005)
- 유용태, "近代中國의 職業團體와 民意形成, 1901-1919", 동양사학연구, (101), pp.329~375 (2007), 동양사학회
- 千聖林, "내셔널 아이덴티티를 찾아서:20세기 중국의 ‘黃帝’와 ‘中華民族’만들기", 대구사학, 81, pp.199~224 (2005), 대구사학회
- 耿云志, "孫中山民族主義思想的歷史演變 in : 中國近代史上的民族主義" (2007), 社會科學文獻出版社
- 孫隆基, "淸季民族主義與黃帝崇拜之發明", 歷史硏究, 3 (2000)
- 沈松僑, "我以我血薦軒轅-黃帝神話與晩淸的國族建構", 臺灣社會硏究季刊, 28 (1997)
- 安靜波, "論梁啓超的民族觀", 近代史硏究, 3 (1999)
- 李朝津, "章太炎的民族主義-中國近代自由主義典範形成初探", 臺灣社會科學季刊, 21 (1996)
- 陳儀深, "二十世紀上半葉中國民族主義的發展 in : 認同與國家:近代中西歷史的比較" (1994), 中央硏究院近代史硏究所
- 彭英明, "關于我國民族槪念歷史的初步考察", 民族硏究, 2 (1985)
- 黃興濤, "“中華民族”槪念萌生與形成的歷史考察 in : 辛亥革命與20世紀的中國" (2002), 中央文獻出版社
- 石川禎浩, "梁啓超と文明の視座 in : 梁啓超" (1999), みすず書房
- 榮澤幸一, "帝國主義成立期における浮田和民の思想的特質", 歷史學硏究, (332) (1968)
- 齋藤道彦, "中國近代と大中華主義-淸末から中華民國へ in : 民國前期中國と東アジアの變動", 中央大學出版部
- 田中比呂志, "創られる傳統-淸末民初の國民形成と歷史敎科書", 歷史評論, (659) (2005)
- Leibold, James, "Competing Narratives of Racial Unity in Republican China:From the Yellow Emperor to Peking Man", Modern China, 32(2) (2006)
- Zarrow, Peter, "Liang Qichao and the Coceptualization of“ Race”in Late Qing China", 中央硏究院近代史硏究所集刊, 52 (2006)
