大院君執政期 朝鮮社會의 變化와 發展 : James B. Palais의 “Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea”에 대한 서평 논문

Abstract

The purpose of this writing is to understand the social changes and developments in the Daewongun period through a book review of the James B. Palais’s “Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea”(Cambridge: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, 1975). Palais’s viewpoint centers around equilibrium and marginal adjustment as a means to analyze Daewongun’s reforms. He argues that the King and Yangban of the Chosŏn Dynasty were in confrontation with each other while simultaneously maintaining the equilibrium with kind of a mutual interdependence. However,if the problem occurs in between them, according to Palais they apparently attempted to restore said equilibrium by taking minimal action with marginal adjustment. From this perspective, I will mention a few things about his analysis of Daewongun’s reforms. First, the viewpoint of analysis on reform:Palais’s argument is based upon a premise that Daewongun’s reforms was a ‘failure’ and he thus attempts to analyze said failure. Nevertheless, it seems likely that if we try to explain history with such an unwarranted focus on equilibrium,it may be difficult to account for successive change accumulated from the beginning. It is possible to say that the King or officials are in an equilibrium unless they do not leave their inherent position within the holistic place of things. However, the particular conditions or criteria in which the King and other officials are able to coexist to each other may be altered to remain in this equilibrium. Hence, it would be more important to find out the difference and to reveal the meaning of such contents. In the point of marginal adjustment, it is difficult to say that Daewongun’s reforms failed because his reform did not bring ‘sweeping changes’ in the Chosŏn society. If there is something to be changed by Daewongun’s reforms, it, of course, should be evaluated with certain ‘reformative characters.’To be more specific, a supposedly legitimate account of reforms should encompass even the smallest of changes. Second, the subject who promote reform:Palais says that powerful authority is an absolute requirement to promote reform. He further says that the social structure of Chosŏn could not create a powerful and authoritative central government because of its habitual need to implement marginal adjustments for the sake of equilibrium. However, it is not sufficiently argued for that a modern society must conditionally have a powerful Royal authority and a central government. Even if it were so, evidence suggests that the royal authority of Chosŏn and the central government was strong enough at that time. Thus, it seems Palais’ conditional linking between a modern society and central authority is faulty in some noticeable aspects. Furthermore, reforms may indeed be lead firsthand by the King or ruling class but many people who truly desire progress can actualize it with their respective commitment and participation. Korean society was advancing toward that direction. Third, character of reformative politics:Palais said that reformative politics of Daewongun was ‘conservative’ because he did not intend to reform the system of the Choson dynasty and characterized his way as ‘practical’ because his methodology was focused on immediate fruition of aforementioned reforms. Whether in the East or the West, accomplished reform within traditional societies almost always were in a direction of maintaining the Royal regime. Daewongun was a person who promoted drastic institutional reform in various fields. In this regard, Daewongun deserves to be called a reformist. In addition, all reforms are bound to have some practical nature with the purpose of actual use. Forth, The cause of the reform break down:Palais indicated that 19th-century Chosŏn Dynasty was a typical case reflecting the contemporary trend of the downfall of traditional nation-states. He further posited corruption and weakness as contributing causes, of no less in magnitude compared to the Japanese invasion, that triggered the downfall of the Chosŏn dynasty. Yet even though the political circumstances of Chosŏn was by no means sound, it is quite a bold claim to suggest that Chosŏn was in fact forced into collapse for such reasons. Palais also indicated that King(Emperor) Kojong’s administrative inability was a noticeable cause leading to the fall of the Chosŏn Dynasty. However, external factors such as invasion and imperialism appear to have more decisive and observable consequences that ultimately lead to the fall of the Chosŏn dynasty. So such internal factors as the presence or absence of a powerful central authority, while not entirely negligible, cannot be pointed as direct triggers or causes to the fall of the Chosŏn Dynasty. Moreover, it is difficult to argue that Daewongun’s policy of seclusion led to the downfall of Chosŏn. When foreign pressure intensifies, the natural response of traditional societies is to equally strengthen and revise their corresponding modes of social and political organization. Before advancing to the next step, Korea has been invaded by foreign powers and its fate had been changed. After the 19th century, Chosŏn Dynasty went through a period of unprecedented change in Korean history. If the pre-existing change in the Chosŏn society is not at all a prerequisite for the newer changes, one can not properly explain these change in any other way. The period of Daewongun’s reform at a crossroad of changes should be understand again with a big change going on in Korean society.