1916年釜山におけるコレラ流行に対する 植民地権力の対応 ‒防疫と統治技術‒
The Response of Colonial Authorities to the 1916 Cholera Epidemic in Busan -Quarantine and Techniques of Governance-
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
本稿は、1916年の釜山におけるコレラ流行への対応を分析し、1910年代の植民地朝鮮、特に開港場での伝染病対策の実態を明らかにすることを目的とした。 当時の防疫は｢伝染病予防令｣に基づき、警察･軍による強制的な措置が特徴で、植民地統治強化の側面も持っていた。地理的に重要な釜山では、厳格な港湾検疫や衛生指導が実施されたが、その過程で設備･人員不足や中央と地方の連携不足といった課題が浮き彫りになった。また、防疫措置は戸口調査などを通じた｢人口管理｣の一環として、朝鮮人住民を日常的に監視する手段としても機能した。その根底には、朝鮮人の衛生状態を最低限に管理し、日本人への感染拡大を防ぐという植民地統治の目的があった。｢衛生改善｣は、朝鮮人の生活向上よりも統治強化の手段として利用されたのである。 1910年代のコレラ対策は、法令が整備されても民間参加が極めて制限された専制的な政策であった。また、コレラの侵入を完全に防げず、事後の患者発見に重点が置かれるなど、予防より対処を重視した過渡期的な性格を持つものであった。
Abstract
This study analyzes the response to the 1916 cholera epidemic in Busan to clarify the nature of infectious disease control measures in 1910s colonial Korea, particularly in its open ports. Epidemic prevention at the time was based on the “Infectious Disease Prevention Ordinance” (enacted in 1915), which was characterized by coercive measures enforced by the police and military and served to strengthen colonial rule. In the geographically strategic city of Busan, strict measures such as harbor quarantine and hygiene guidance were implemented. However, this process revealed significant challenges, including insufficient facilities and personnel, as well as poor coordination between central and local authorities. Furthermore, these quarantine measures, functioning as part of a “population management” system that included household surveys, also served as daily surveillance over Korean residents. This was rooted in the colonial objective of maintaining the sanitary conditions of Koreans at a minimum level to prevent the spread of infection to the Japanese population. Thus, “hygiene improvement” was utilized more as a tool for reinforcing governance than for improving the lives of Koreans. In conclusion, the cholera countermeasures of the 1910s, while legally established, were autocratic policies with extremely limited civilian participation. Moreover, they were transitional in nature, failing to completely prevent the entry of cholera and placing greater emphasis on reactive responses, such as the early detection of patients after an outbreak, rather than on prevention.