한말 지식인들의 ‘애국론’과 민족주의

Abstract

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, the Resident-General and the pro-Japanese cabinet used military force to suppress anti-Japanese resistance, but there was also a determined effort, beginning around 1906, to try to control and prevent the formation of anti-Japanese sentiments, through the press and the educational system. A series of ordinances was promulgated to control the freedom of the press, and textbooks were censored to remove any content which might inspire patriotic resistance in students. But, in response to criticism of these measures, the office of the Resident-General and other pro-Japanese voices also presented an argument to justify the censorship of textbooks. They insisted that the patriotism promoted by textbooks which described nationalist ideas and political actions was not “real patriotism”, and that the true character of “real patriotism” was a diligent struggle to achieve prosperity, military power and enlightenment. This was a shrewd strategy, since anti-Japanese intellectuals also regarded prosperity, military power and enlightenment as essential for realizing patriotism, but instead of seeing these as an ultimate end in themselves, they saw them as merely the means of establishing a modern state. A typical instance of such a confrontation over the nature of patriotism was the controversy prompted by the second ordinance prohibiting topknots (the traditional Korean sangtu). This reflected a difference in position between conservatives and reformists, but also between pro- and anti-Japanese opinion. All sides of the debate, whether they supported cutting off topknots or preserving topknots, tried to justify their principles and their political actions in patriotic terms. Thus, the controversy and conflict about the nature of patriotism was far more than simply a matter of definition, instead being closely connected with political activity and the acquisition of power. Indeed, many contemporary intellectuals thought of patriotism as political in character, and discussed its origins, its meaning, and how it could be inspired; coming to the conclusion that only when a country could protect its people’s rights and freedoms with laws would they love their country and be willing to fight for it. They therefore insisted that patriotism, understood as political patriotism, could only arise in a constitutional state, i.e. one which protects its people’s rights and freedoms. During the Japanese protectorate, however, any prospects for a constitutional state and popular political participation were remote, and the inspiration of patriotism through such political participation was therefore impossible. Consequently, many intellectuals advocated so-called “natural patriotism” instead of political patriotism. Natural patriotism was combined with the theory of a family-state, in which the state is seen as the extension of the family, and as such deserves the obedience and the unconditional loyalty of its members. Also, the very substance of the state became ambiguous, as Japan absorbed the sovereignty of the Daehan empire. In these circumstances, ‘Minjok (民族)’, representing an ethnic community, replaced ‘Kuk (國)’, representing a state, and subsequent independence movements were driven by nationalism substituting for or combined with patriotism.