임진왜란과 유교적 사회질서

Abstract

Which Confucian features can one find in the governing structure of Chosŏn Korea? How were the power and authority of its governing system exercised? It would be fascinating to try to understand the “Confucian” features of Chosŏn’s governing system through the examples of “regulations and social order.” It is common in any society that those who commit crimes are punished. But when it comes to the issue of which activities are defined as crimes and what kinds of punishment are meted out, the problem is not simple. Each society has its own way of defining crime and punishment, depending on its governing system and modes of power and authority. The administration of punishment, along with Confucian decorum (or ye), constituted the core principles of governing in the Confucian based Chosŏn state. In this article, I examine the governing order of Chosŏn society by analyzing three examples of “crime and punishment” that took place during the period of the Imjin war in the late sixteenth century. The first example involves the issue of social status order and Confucian power, seen in the life history of Sin Ch’ungwŏn. He rose from a nobi to become a military captain of the Choryŏng area. The case of Sin Ch’ungwŏn, who was eventually punished after the war, shows how the ruling yangban class of Chosŏn society tried to preserve the nobi system. The second example concerns the frequent eruption of banditry, and the government’s efforts to suppress the bandits during wartime. Local bandits were often welcomed by local residents and this helps us understand the Confucian governing fabric of Chosŏn society. The third example involves a respected army leader, Kim Tŏknyŏng. The Chosŏn government initially praised Kim as a leader of “righteous armies” (in a situation where the rescue troops of Ming China had retreated back to their country), then eventually killed him after a considerable lull during the war. Taken together, what do these examples tell us about the kingly ideals of Confucian politics championed by King Sŏnjo? As far as the issue of crime and punishment is concerned, these examples hardly show the kingly ideals of Confucian politics. What can we say about “Confucian” ideals or power in the governing system of Chosŏn society? It is not an easy question. Chosŏn society, which was dominated by Confucian discourses, was certainly Confucian. But when it came to the practice of power and authority, it seemed to succumb to the strategies of politics as well as to the mundane interests of the ruling class. This warrants detailed consideration of which specific aspects of Chosŏn society were so “Confucian.”