21세기 중국 신유가의 정세인식과 시진핑체제의 역사 정당성-중화제국체제의 데자뷰와 타자성의 문제-

Abstract

To interpret China's entire history with its dependence on the path and resilience, it inevitably conflicts with the question of how to view China's 20th century. On this issue, the neo-Confucianists and the Communist Party are subtly divided. The Neo-Confucianism in China is not too far from the way the noblemen of the traditional period exist. The state and the intellectuals are constantly trying to exploit each other. Chinese intellectuals seek to win the support of the government to stand in a position to lead the future of China, as they did in the past traditional times. They are also supporters and critics of the administration. Nevertheless, the article argues that the excess of anxiety consciousness toward the state shown by the Chinese neo-Confucianism have resulted in their departure from universality. This is also closely related to the conclusion of the neo-Confucian discourse's perception of the 20th century. As a result, it was believed to have allowed the appearance of "study abroad captured by the state." This is due to their 'occupant attitude' toward Confucianism. This retention of attitudes makes it impossible for them to object to Confucian culture and Chinese studies and make them unable to distance themselves. This result, which they did not intend, resulted in the dwarfing of Confucianism and the de-universalization and nationalization of Confucianism. What the neo-Confucian school did not recognize, however, is that the legitimacy of rule for the Communist Party officially comes from clarity as long as the Communist Party is alive. To get out of here would be the collapse of the ruling ideology, which is part of the iron triangle of Party officials, Marxism and the People's Liberation Army established by Mao Zedong. The Xi Jinping administration believes that Communist rule should be sustained by the ideology of Marxism. In 2017, the Communist Party of China declared that it would compete with the West with the "Chineseization of Marxism," raising the "socialist idea of Chinese characteristics in the new era of Xi Jinping." However, Tianxia(天下) should be reconsidered with it on the premise that the problem consciousness of the 5.4 movement 100 years ago will be raised again. When that happens, China's otherness and ethics can be acquired. The absence of otherness and ethics could result in allowing the possibility of a more purposeful and totalitarian direction in the course of the reconstruction of the system of the New-Chinese Empire, which is now being constructed. In China, after the collapse of the Chinese Empire in the late 19th century, there has never been a "conscious" reflection on Sino-centrism, which had been the ideology of the Chinese Empire throughout the 20th century. Only when the work of fundamentally liquidating the relationship between domination and discrimination that has been going on since the traditional era is preceded can the establishment of equal and pluralistic cooperative relations in the 21st century. Under this premise, studying abroad in Korea and China now needs to be discussed on the premise of equality and diversity, while respecting the locality of each other. Basically they're them and we're us. Will he use China's talk of studying abroad as a lesson, a head-on teacher, a teacher on the other hand, or just a reference? We must open up various possibilities and discuss what points to cooperate and compete in. In the succession of tradition, Korea and China make a huge difference. China, positive or negative, is a country that "cannot help" inherits tradition, and Korea seems to be the opposite. In Korea, "compatible solidarity between the past and the present" is more necessary, and it is time to consider the awakening and modern reconstruction of the old.