박은식의 양계초 수용에 관한 연구 — 박은식의 유교구신(儒敎求新)과 근대성을 중심으로 —

Abstract

Most of the published discussions on the interaction between traditionalConfucianism and modern values in East Asia are concerned with ChineseConfucianism. But Korea has just as much Confucian history as China, andthis analysis will try to shed some light on the interaction between KoreanConfucianism and modernity by comparing Pak Eun Sik (朴殷植), a KoreanConfucian scholar and independence activist in the early 20th century, withLiang Qi Chao (梁啓超), a famous Chinese thinker of that era whose ideasderived from Confucianism and who represented Pak’s window on theWestern world. At the end of the Joseon era, just before it was colonized by Japan, Paktried to renovate Korean Confucianism to help develop a modern nation. He was an active participant in the Jagang Movement (自强運動), the nameof which implies two ideas:, one, from the “ceaseless endeavors” (自强不息)of Zouyi(周易), means “strenuous efforts”; and the other implies gettingstrong by oneself, meaning a spirit of independence. In 1907 Pak alsotranslated Liang’s Paper on Patriotism (愛國論), which had been publishedin the magazine West Friend (西友). About one third of this work had beentranslated before, in 1899 by Jang Ji Yeon (張志淵), but Pak translated mostof Liang’s original, omitting only a few sentences which described China as“the only nation in East Asia.” Actually Liang was referring to China’sgrowing weakness, with the Chinese people being uninterested incompeting or going to war against other nations, since as “the only nation”they need not be patriotic. Pak thought that these ideas were fundamentallywrong, and that furthermore they encouraged unwarranted culturalsubservience toward China (中華主義) among conservative Confucianscholars. Many in the Jagang Movement, including Jang Ji Yeon, Kim WonGeug (金源極) and Pak himself, were critical of the way in which suchconservative scholars viewed the nation, seeing it as a form of sycophancytoward China which did nothing to help Joseon escape from its humiliatingposition as a Japanese protectorate. Pak’s deliberate omission of these ideasfrom his translation therefore shows his support for an autonomous Joseonidentity, independent of this kind of servile ConfucianismWhen the Jagang Movement reached its zenith, in 1908, he published apaper seeking to popularize a reformation of Confucianism. In his Opinionon the Reformation of Confucianism (儒敎求新論), he puts forward amodern style of thought (and religion) in a concise and practical formoffering social and moral guidance to the general public; contrasting it withthe conservative Confucianism which he criticized for its emphasis onintellectual superiority which allowed an educated elite to dominate theother classes of society. The ultimate aim of his reformation is to establishJoseon as a modern nation-state, independent of Japanese control, and topromote a national sense of identity and the rights of the Korean people. Infact his paper has the same purpose as Liang’s Opinion on the Reformationof Religion in China (論支那宗敎改革), though there are some differencesbetween the two. The most important is that Pak was writing mainly for thepublic, whereas Liang targeted the Xiangshen (鄕紳), the leading classes ofChina, who had historically upheld traditional Confucianism. Thus bothauthors were seeking to modernize the same body of Confucian thought,but they held different views on how this could be done. There is also a distinction in their attitudes toward socialism. Pak took apositive view, comparing socialism with the Mo School (墨家) of ancientChina in an article in the Dong-A Daily News in 1925：Pursue the Truth ofLearning to Follow Justice (학의 진상은 의를 쫓아 구하라). He exhortedKoreans to keep striving for independence in defiance of Japanesecoercion, arguing that the Mo School and socialism both represented astruggle for the spirit of salvation. Liang, on the other hand, took a verydifferent view of socialism. In 1922, in his History of Political Thoughtbefore Chin (先秦政治思想史), he asserts that after the regimes based onrepublicanism and nationalism, Confucianism should become a new worldcurrent, like socialism, replacing all other national systems, just asConfucianism had previously replaced “all philosophers and scholars” (諸子百家), including the Mo School and the School of Law (法家) in Han dynastyChina. Pak and Liang were contemporaries working in a context ofConfucianism, but they had a different understanding of the relationshipbetween Confucianism and modernity. In fact there were significantdifferences, both in the political and social circumstances of their countries,and also in the character of the Confucianism which prevailed there. Pak’sslogans were “getting strong by oneself ” (自强) which promoted a uniqueKorean identity, the “reformation of Confucianism” (儒敎求新) which wasaimed at the general public, and the “struggle for independence” (獨立鬪爭)through which the ordinary people could find peace for themselves via hisconcept of Confucianism. This was all quite distinct from Liang’s ideas, withtheir emphasis upon Chinese traditional thought. Even today, there areongoing debates on the interaction between traditional and modern ways ofinterpreting the world, chiefly regarding communication, coexistence, andprogress. Especially in regions outside the Western sphere, such questionscontinue to challenge society, and have yet to be fully resolved. Thus, thechoices which Pak made about 100 years ago still provide a goodfoundation for discussions about how the traditional and the modernworldviews can coexist to allow progress.