지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The ultimate aim of national liberation movements in colonial societies is political independence. However, before reaching this aim, many movements considered self-government with the framework of the empire to be a desirable stage before attaining complete independence. The Irish and Indian nationalist movements of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries aimed at self-government first and only turned to full independence at the last moment. In Korea, however, the movement for self-government in the 1920 and 1930s was confronted with severe criticism by the left wing of the bourgeois nationalists and socialists. Historians have adopted similarly critical attitudes. What brought about such differences in the character of the nationalist movements in these three nations? This paper takes a look at the development of the national movements in Ireland and India from moderate nationalist aims to radical demands for total independence, and compares these two experiences with those of the Korean independence movement during Japanese rule.
I propose three tentative answers to why the Korean independence movement took a different path. First, the confrontation between idealism and realism was more acute than in other societies-this difference stemmed from Confucian culture, which lent a legitimate cause far greater importance than immediate benefits. Second, the bourgeois nationalist movement emerged along with socialist and communist movements in Korea, unlike Ireland and India. Ireland became a free state in 1922, long before communism became prominent globally as a political ideology. In India, socialism and communism could not compete with the overwhelming power of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.
In Korea, however, where bourgeois nationalism and communism emerged simultaneously and checked each other, the demand for self-government was criticized as "reformist and compromising." Moreover, Ireland and India witnessed the rise of great leaders such as Parnell and Gandhi in the quest for self-government; Korea had no such leaders and the Korean people barely understood what self-government meant. Lastly, the three nations demonstrated different attitudes towards the colonial powers to which they were subject. Nationalist leaders in Ireland and India held admiration for English constitutionalism and its political tradition, lending a hand to demands for self-government. In Korea, by contrast, nobody trusted Japan or admired the Japanese political tradition, which was understandable considering the oppressive rule by the Japanese colonial government.
The demand for self-government dearly differed from the wish for assimilation with Japan, and yet it was criticized almost to the same degree as objectives held by pro-Japanese assimilationists. This is probably a reflection of the general attitude in Korean historical studies, which approved of a "revolutionary, uncompromising" policy and military and socialist resistance while dismissing other forms of nationalism. However, self-government was seriously considered by some leaders within the Provisional Government, prompting a revaluation of the nationalist movement during this era. The criticism that the demand for self-government was based on blind acceptance of modernization propagated by the imperialists also needs to be reconsidered. It would be easy for us to blame the contemporary attraction to the discourse on modem civilization and enlightenment; it would be another story of the colonial subjects who believed in modernization as the only way by which they could free themselves. The movement for self-government ought to be interpreted as an aspect of colonial modernity, and the effort to pursue it as such would lead to a new understanding.
I propose three tentative answers to why the Korean independence movement took a different path. First, the confrontation between idealism and realism was more acute than in other societies-this difference stemmed from Confucian culture, which lent a legitimate cause far greater importance than immediate benefits. Second, the bourgeois nationalist movement emerged along with socialist and communist movements in Korea, unlike Ireland and India. Ireland became a free state in 1922, long before communism became prominent globally as a political ideology. In India, socialism and communism could not compete with the overwhelming power of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.
In Korea, however, where bourgeois nationalism and communism emerged simultaneously and checked each other, the demand for self-government was criticized as "reformist and compromising." Moreover, Ireland and India witnessed the rise of great leaders such as Parnell and Gandhi in the quest for self-government; Korea had no such leaders and the Korean people barely understood what self-government meant. Lastly, the three nations demonstrated different attitudes towards the colonial powers to which they were subject. Nationalist leaders in Ireland and India held admiration for English constitutionalism and its political tradition, lending a hand to demands for self-government. In Korea, by contrast, nobody trusted Japan or admired the Japanese political tradition, which was understandable considering the oppressive rule by the Japanese colonial government.
The demand for self-government dearly differed from the wish for assimilation with Japan, and yet it was criticized almost to the same degree as objectives held by pro-Japanese assimilationists. This is probably a reflection of the general attitude in Korean historical studies, which approved of a "revolutionary, uncompromising" policy and military and socialist resistance while dismissing other forms of nationalism. However, self-government was seriously considered by some leaders within the Provisional Government, prompting a revaluation of the nationalist movement during this era. The criticism that the demand for self-government was based on blind acceptance of modernization propagated by the imperialists also needs to be reconsidered. It would be easy for us to blame the contemporary attraction to the discourse on modem civilization and enlightenment; it would be another story of the colonial subjects who believed in modernization as the only way by which they could free themselves. The movement for self-government ought to be interpreted as an aspect of colonial modernity, and the effort to pursue it as such would lead to a new understanding.
목차
Ⅰ. 아일랜드
Ⅱ. 인도
Ⅲ. 한국
Ⅳ. 세 나라의 차이
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Nature and Characteristics of Nationalist Movement in Korea
Korea Journal
1966 .01
-
India’s Independence Movement Activities in Europe
한국독립운동사연구
2006 .12
-
3ㆍ1운동과 국내 민족주의 계열의 독립운동 : 1920년대를 중심으로
한국독립운동사연구
1999 .12
-
일제시기 한국의사들의 독립운동
의사학
2008 .12
-
20세기 초 세계사의 굴절과 한국의 민족해방운동 -비식민화 현상과 통일전선운동-
역사학보
2020 .03
-
김일식(金一植) 일가의 독립운동과 국가건설운동
역사연구
2014 .06
-
역사 사료적으로 살펴본 3·1운동 관련 ‘문헌’
신학지남
2019 .03
-
대한민국 임시정부와 여성들의 독립운동 : 1932∼1945
역사와경계
2008 .09
-
Historical View of Independence Movement
Korea Journal
1987 .10
-
한국기독교와 민족운동 : ‘한국기독교 민족운동’의 개념화를 위한 시론
한국기독교와 역사
2003 .02
-
대한민국정부의 3·1절 기념의례와 3·1운동 표상화(1988～2017)
사학연구
2018 .09
-
Socio-Economics of the Nationalist Movement in the Early 20th Century
Korea Journal
1974 .09
-
일제시기 조선 자치운동의 논리
민족문화연구
2006 .01
-
오방 최흥종의 생애와 민족운동
한국독립운동사연구
2011 .08
-
3·1운동과 국내 독립운동
동양학
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002858345