대안으로서의 ‘제국론’과 중국 특수론* - 네그리-하트와 가라타니 고진의 ‘제국론’을 통해 본 왕후이의 ‘제국’ 인식과 ‘대안적 중국론’의 의미와 한계

Abstract

This study aims to explore contemporary political and social theories centered around various discourses of ‘empire’. The primary discussion starts with the ‘empire’ theory of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, extending to the ‘empire’ theory and understanding of China based on Kojin Karatani’s concepts of ‘World Republic’ and ‘reciprocity’, proposed after the 2010s. Furthermore, the study critically examines Wang Hui’s understanding of modernity and his empire theory. Negri and Hardt’s ‘empire’ theory predicts the emergence of a new political subject called the ‘multitude’ and focuses on presenting an alternative ideology that transcends the current paradigm. On the other hand, Karatani’s ‘empire’ theory seeks to present the ideal image of a ‘World Republic’ through the advanced recovery of reciprocity, drawing from traditional ideological resources. Karatani explores new possibilities within the existing imperial structure in a way that differs from the notion of historical progress. Their concept of empire is an attempt to conceive a new political model that surpasses the limitations of the state system, based on a Hegelian-Marxist perspective that interprets human history linearly. Particularly, they resonate with Marx’s critique of the modern state, striving to envision a future beyond the state system. However, Wang Hui’s ‘empire’ theory rejects such a linear view of history and replaces it with the imperial time of Chinese tradition, making it difficult to conceive of a progressive alternative. In his efforts to overcome the Western-centric modern worldview and the problems of capitalism, Wang Hui focuses not on proposing a new political system fundamentally different from the existing one, but rather on adjusting the relationship between the party and the state within the existing (Chinese) nation-state system, contemplating how to reflect the voice of the masses within the party (Communist Party). As a result, his approach is limited to seeking improvements within the current state system rather than addressing its fundamental problems.