대한의원과 식민지 근대성의 문제

Abstract

Recently, there was a hot debate in Korea over the centennial celebration of Daehan Hospital(大韓醫院). The hospital was built in 1907 when Korea was a protectorate of Japan. It was Ito Hirobumi, the Resident-General of Korea, who proposed the idea of building a huge modern hospital. The idea was soon put into act. The Committee for Building Daehan Hospital was organized in 1906, and Sato Susumu, the medical general of the Japanese Army, was appointed as the chief commissioner. The committee was consisted of 7 members who were all Japanese. The expenses for constructing the building reached 300,000 yen and annual working expenses were more than ten times of the hospital built in 1899 by the Korean government. The motive behind building this huge hospital was evident: to advertise the profit that the Korean people could get by being colonized thus to justify annexation of Korea. The centennial celebration events of Daehan Hospital were planned and carried out by Seoul National University Hospital(SNUH). The criticism was leveled at how a National Hospital of Korea could celebrate the opening of a colonial institute, spending great expenses. Although physical continuity could be admitted-the building of Daehan Hospital has now become a part of Seoul National University Hospital-, it is totally absurd that the hospital that was built by Korean government attempts to celebrate the opening of the hospital that was built with a view to justify the annexation and to serve colonization of Korea. The centennial celebration of Daehan Hospital is no different from celebration of establishing colonial government as the beginning of the modern government in Korea, which is unlikely to be accepted for ordinary Korean people today. Such were the main points of criticism. Faced with this criticism, the SNUH insisted that their centennial events were not planned to ‘celebrate’, but to ‘remember’ the opening of Daehan Hospital, adding that the events deserved to be held because it is the symbol of modern medicine in Korea. They also argued that the Daehan Hospital was a complex of modernity and colonialism, both of which are inseparable from each other. As a consequence, they argued, the denial of Daehan Hospital would result in denial of all the efforts of modernization in medicine that had begun since late 19th century. In order to decolorize colonial tint of Daehan Hospital, they adopted the strategy of presenting Daehan Hospital as a result of Joseon government’s efforts to modernize medicine rather than to regard it as a central base toward establishing colonial system in medicine, an opinion generally accepted on the nature of Daehan Hospital among historians. SNUH’s argument to justify the centennial events, whether it was designed for the purpose of celebration or memorial, reveal very well the problem of colonial modernity in medicine. The problem of colonial modernity is a hot issue in almost every field of Korea which underwent modernization, and medicine is no exception for it. The problem begins to arise when one attempts to separate modernity and colonialism, and to present modernity as a politically neutral value as if it is a virtue which is in itself its own excuse for being. They ignore that in reality modernity is a concept deeply impregnated with the value that was intended by the propagator of that modernity. Therefore, if we do not take into account of the context in which the modernity had been imposed or pursued, and attempt to abstract it from the context in which it had been deeply embedded, we are committing a serious error. Modernity is always directed for something; it hides a certain intension behind it. If we do not raise the question of “modernity for what?,” we cannot prevent the modernity from being misused or abused. As is often the case with in colonialism, modernity serves as a good excuse for colonization. Colonial system of administration may have been more efficient than before; streets may have been cleaner than before; even life expectancy may have been longer than before. All these can be conceived as important achievements of modernity. But we must ask the following question: What were all these achievements for? Can colonization be justified by providing such achievements of modernity as efficiency of administration, prolongation of life expectancy, and other improvement of economic indicators? Are these worth obtaining at the cost of conceding one’s own sovereignty? Despite the visible achievements that the colonial government may have brought, it is clear that the intention of introducing modernity should not be overlooked and colonization cannot be justified by the name of modernity.