동아시아 근대의 문화론적 전환과 3.1운동

Abstract

제1차 세계대전 이전 일본과 중국에서 독일식 문화 개념이 수용되는 과정은 매우 혼란스러웠다. 개념 자체만 보더라도 전통적 한자 개념이나 문명 개념과 그다지구별되지 않고 사용되는 경우가 많았다. 또 1차대전 종결 이후 ‘문화주의’ 철학으로정립되기까지 일본에서 문화 개념이 실천적인 문화운동으로 발전하지는 못했다. 이에 반해 중국에서는 신해혁명의 좌절 이후 독일식 문화 개념이 수용되자 곧 이어신문화운동이라는 실천운동이 전개되었다. 문화주의라는 철학적 바탕이 없는 채로, 구문화와의 투쟁을 슬로건으로 내건 강력한 문화운동을 전개하였다는 점에서 중국은 일본과 달랐다. 일본을 통해 한국으로 수용된 ‘문화론’은 다시 조선의 전통=‘국수(國粹, nationality)’에 대해 주목하게 하였으며, 조선의 개별성에 대한 강조는 민족에 대한 자각을 강화하였다. 병합 이전 활발하게 전개되었던 ‘국수보존운동’은 신문화운동으로서의 성격도 조금 갖고 있었으나 1910년대 국수보존운동이 신문화운동으로발전하지는 못했다. 이는 문명 개념의 지속성 혹은 문화 개념의 혼란 때문이었다. Japan and China’s adoption of the German concept of culture before World War Ⅰ was marked with confusion. Culture, as used in those times, had few distinctions from the traditional concept depicted in the Chinese character for civilization: 文化. This German concept, however, failed to spread into a practical cultural movement in Japan, despite the widespread growth of ‘culturalism’ philosophy after World War Ⅰ. In contrast, the introduction of the German concept of culture into China after the failed Xinhai Revolution catalyzed the New Culture Movement. China, unlike Japan, and with few philosophical groundings adopted ‘the concept of culture’ and developed a strong cultural movement that made struggles with old ways a powerful slogan. In the case of Korea, the importation of ‘the concept of culture’ into Korea via Japan led to renewed interest in Korean traditions. The concept, at the time, equated to nationality in ways that emphasized Korean characteristics and reinforced national self-awareness. And while the movement to preserve national characteristics prior to Korea’s annexation to Japan carried signs of a new cultural movement, a full development failed to take place in the 1910s (despite Lee Kwangsoo’s activities in ‘spiritual civilization’). Regardless, the flow of principle of national self-determination and reconstructionism in world history had great influences on Korea, which culminated in the March First Declaration of Independence. The overarching logic at the time aimed at using civil disobedience to gain national self-determination and to embark on a new civilization and culture while reordering the world order. Combined with the concept of culture, the principle of national self-determination and reconstructionism became a powerful weapon. The March First Declaration of Independence thus became a ‘cultural bill of rights’ that ushered in a new era of culture to Korea and the world. In this regard, the March First Movement may be called a ‘struggle for culture.’ The article presents three major shifts in East Asian modernity that the March First Movement encouraged. First, the March First Movement undermined preexisting hierarchies within the civilizational paradigm. Second, the movement was predicated on an “era of culture” endemic of the 1920s. Third, the movement opened new opportunities to further strengthen reciprocity of the ‘colonial modern’ in East Asia and the world, which became part of a new modern society through Wilson-Roosevelt’s post-WWII liberal planning.