왜 <帝國主義下の朝鮮>은 없었는가? ― 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄)의 식민(정책)론과 대만･조선

Abstract

There are a lot of studies concerning Colonialism Studies by Yanaihara Tadao, who is well known as a passionate supporter of liberal colonial policies during pre-war period, but there is little studies which focused on his scarcity about studying colonial Korea. He was interested in almost all Japanese colonies including Taiwan, Manchuria and the South Sea Islands, but he did not express as much interest to Korea as to the other colonies, and this is very exceptional considering his academic career. Why did not he write a book like Korea Under Imperialism? This article tries to answer this question. The process of answering this question will help us better understand the characteristics of his colony studies, and further understand the difference between Taiwan and Korea as Japanese colonies. External pressure, which previous studies pointed out as a cause of Yanaihara’s lack of Korea studies, can be equally applied to the case of Taiwan studies. Therefore we have to deal with this question from the other perspective, for example, from within his colonial studies. At this point, we have to pay attention to his general theory on colonies. He envisioned so called “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization(=civilization), political principle of colonial autonomy, and “harmonious empire” in which necessities of each social group is well coordinated. He practiced Taiwan studies according to this general theory, and concluded that Taiwan has reached most highly capitalized society among Japanese colonies, and demanded so called “civilized colonial politics”, that is Taiwanese colonial assembly. In contrast, he lacked systematic analysis on Korean economy like Taiwan, and underestimated capital accumulation and finance development, but still insisted establishment of Korean colonial assembly. In other words, establishment of colonial assembly was the result of capitalization in Taiwan’s case, whereas establishment of colonial assembly was prerequisite of capitalization in Korea’s case. To sum up, Yanaihara thought that in Taiwan, the substance of “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization existed in tangible form, but in Korea a sufficient condition through which Japanese government of Korea could be justified was not prepared yet. I think this led to Yanaihara’s silence on the economy of colonial Korea.