경상도 성주의 1862년 농민항쟁과 사회변동

Abstract

In the late 18th century, a peasant differentiation occurred in Seongju, as commodity economy was developed. Economically achieved peasants raised their status, and this caused a disturbance of the status system. The peasant differentiation and the disturbance of the status system brought about the absurdity of three kinds of taxation system, and the aggravation of that absurdity resulted in 1862’s peasant uprisings. In 1862, there were two peasant uprisings in Seongju. Landlords, rich farmers, small farmers and poor farmers all participated in the first uprising, but the leading group was rich farmers, and the demand, which was based on rich farmers' interests, of the uprising was to forbid illegal taxation by local governors. The second uprising was mounted autonomously by the group of small farmers and poor farmers who were dissatisfied with the result of the first uprising. Peasants demanded reformation of the taxation system in order to resolve the concentration of taxes on small farmers and poor farmers fundamentally. They tried to accomplish their demands by negotiating with dispatched officials, rather than presenting a petition for reformation. The peasant uprising in 1862 has a huge historical meaning in that the governed peasant class deployed organized collective movements to resolve the socioeconomic absurdity. It resulted in the reformation of the taxation system which would contribute to the stabilization of the peasant economy. Also, this experience aroused peasants’ resistance and consciousness of criticism. Nevertheless, the peasant uprisings in 1862 did not deviate from the former reformation movements under the existing system. Peasants never proceeded to negate or reform the existing system even in the second uprising, not to mention the first uprising, even though they expressed their demands in a rather violent way. The interests and fights of peasants were to reform the absurdity and corruption of the three kinds of taxation system anyway. Meanwhile, the peasant uprisings astounded the traditional ruling gentry. They could rarely exert their influences on peasants or local officials. The cause was that they helplessly abandoned social roles of a ruling class, rather than tried to find solutions for social absurdities positively. With the peasant uprisings as a momentum, the ruling gentry, on the one hand, started to find solutions for social absurdities in order to regain their fallen social dignity by the uprisings, and, on the other hand, deployed movements which would promote union as a ruling group again.