‘평화적 혁명’으로서의 3･1운동: 폭력성의 조건과 비폭력･불복종

Abstract

3･1운동의 폭력성과 관련하여, 우선 일제 군경의 발포가 자행된 시위 가운데 약 85% 정도의 시위가 폭력적인 시위였다는 사실에 주목할 필요가 있다. 이를 통해 발포와 폭력성의 상관성이 매우 높았음을 확인할 수 있다. 여기에 3･1운동이 기본적으로 비폭력 운동의 성격을 갖고 있었다는 사실을 해명하는 열쇠가 숨어 있다. 3･1운동의 폭력시위 대부분은 일제 군경의 시위 진압 방식과 깊은 연관성을 갖고 있었다. 3･1운동 연구에서 그 동안 거의 완전히 간과되어 온 측면은 바로 비타협적인 불복종 행동에 대한 것이다. 대개 평화운동에서의 불복종 행동은 “선에 대한 협력과 악에 대한 비협력”이라는 도덕적인 원칙에서 출발한다. 조선인들은 불의의 법과 제도에 협력할 수 없다는 논리에 따라 일본의 지배를 거부하였다. 폭력시위에 대한 미시분석의 과정에서 그런 불복종의 태도를 선명하게 확인할 수 있다. 첫째, 거의 대부분의 시위는 비폭력시위로 시작하고 있다는 점이다. 둘째, 이틀 이상 지속되는 연속시위의 경우, 폭력시위는 대부분 둘째 날 이후에 나타나고 있다. 발포 등의 잔인한 진압 방식이 동원되거나 그것이 예상되는 경우에 시위가 폭력화되고 있는 것이다. 셋째, 발포가 있는 경우에도 비폭력시위를 유지하는 경우가 상당히 많다는 사실이다. 이런 사실을 통해 3･1운동의 주요시위가 불복종의 가치를 바탕으로 전개되었다는 사실을 부정하기 어렵다. 이처럼 비폭력과 불복종 행위를 가로지르며 아름답게 직조되었던 3･1운동은 ‘평화적 혁명’이라고 명명할 수 있을 것이다. 특히 다음 3가지 측면에서 그렇게 인정할 수 있다. 첫째, 3･1운동은 실용적인 운동이었다. 폭력시위의 경우에도 파괴 그 자체를 목적으로 삼지는 않았다. 둘째, 3･1운동은 도덕적인 운동이었다. 권력의 말살이 아니라, 상대방의 개조를 목적으로 한 운동이었다. 셋째, 3･1운동은 창조적인 운동이었다. 비폭력･불복종운동은 분노를 건설적인 힘으로 전환한다. 3･1운동은 ‘문화를 위한 투쟁’이기도 했다. 3･1운동의 힘은 이른바 ‘문화의 힘’이고, 창조적인 힘이다. 3･1운동에 참여했던 조선인들이 스스로 성장하는 계기로 만들 수 있었다. 이런 점에서 3･1운동은 ‘혁명적인 운동’이었고, ‘평화적인 혁명’이었다. During the March 1st Movement, approximately 85% of the street demonstrations the Japanese police and military suppressed by firing weapons erupted into violence. This figure suggests a high correlation between suppression by force and the consequent resort to violence on the part of the demonstrators. The fundamentally nonviolent nature of the March 1st Movement must be examined with this correlation in mind. Most of the violence during the movement was closely tied to how the Japanese authorities responded as the following points show: First, no Korean could have premeditated a violent protest at that time. The movement had only been discussed a month or so in advance, and there existed no organization powerful enough to plan an armed struggle. Second, most of the street demonstrations, having been organized in a matter of days, could only be carried out peacefully. Although some demonstrators carried tools, there was not a single report of anyone carrying a weapon such as a sword, scythe, or bamboo spear. Third, in those cases where violence did occur, it was almost always in response to the ruthless suppression undertaken by Japanese authorities. Hardly anyone attacked the Japanese out of sheer hatred or animosity. Koreans participated in the movement from a sense of freedom, and the majority of the demonstrations did not devolve into acts of hostility. Previous studies on the March 1st Movement have largely overlooked its nature as an uncompromising act of civil disobedience. In most peace movements, civil disobedience starts from the moral principle of “cooperation with good and non-cooperation with evil.” By the same token, Koreans refused to cooperate with unjust laws and systems and thus rejected Japan’s colonial rule. Although their belief in civil disobedience was not particularly made apparent during the March 1st Movement such as in the nationalist movement in India led by Mahatma Gandhi or the civil rights movement in the United States led by Martin Luther King Jr., a microanalysis of the “violent” aspect of the street demonstrations clearly show elements of civil disobedience in the March 1st Movement: street demonstrations mostly started out as nonviolent; violence was used on the second day or later in those lasting for two days or more, indicating that it was used in response to or in anticipation of merciless suppression; and finally, many demonstrations continued to be nonviolent despite the armed response by Japanese authorities. It can thus hardly be denied that the major demonstrations of the independence movement were carried out according to the principle of peaceful civil disobedience. As an extremely well-organized movement grounded in a spirit of nonviolence and peaceful civil disobedience, the March 1st Movement can be defined as a “peaceful revolution” based on the following three aspects: First of all, it was a practical movement. Even the demonstrators who resorted to violence did not regard destruction itself as their objective. Second, it was a moralistic movement that aimed to reform the colonial rulers rather than obliterate their power. Third, it was a creative movement and a cultural struggle. A nonviolent disobedience movement turns anger into a constructive force. The movement was strengthened by its creativity and association with culture. The Koreans who took part in the movement turned it into an occasion for personal growth. In this respect, it was both a “revolutionary” movement and a peaceful revolution.