파리강화회의(1919)와 김규식의 한국독립외교 -고종황제의 자주독립외교의 계보를 중심으로-

최덕규 한국세계문화사학회 2015 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.35

The purpose of this paper is to trace the genealogy of Emperor Gojong's diplomacy for the independence of Korea from Japan's colonial rule. The paper analyses the diplomacy practiced by Kim Gyu-sik (金奎植) at the Paris Peace Conference as a probable successor to Emperor Gojong's diplomacy for independence. The paper also examines the idealogical arguments Emperor Gojong persistently made throughout his reign to resist Japanese aggression. Kim Gyu-sik, who had succeeded Emperor Gojong's spirit on diplomacy for independence, tried to persuade the delegates of powerful nations at the Paris Peace Conference of the appropriateness of liberating Korea from Japan's colonial occupation. The deep ties between Emperor Gojong and Kim Gyu-sik could be traced back to the mid 1880s when Gojong assigned Kim Yong-won (金鏞元), the father of Kim Gyu-sik, to a special mission to be carried out in Russia. As the emperor's emissary, Kim Yong-won had fulfilled a secret mission in Vladivostok to ask for the Russian government's support toward the independence of Korea, particularly from the Qing dynasty's interference in Korea's domestic affairs. However, soon after returning to Seoul, Kim Yong-won became accused of infringing the Qing dynasty's suzerainty and was forced into exile. Under these circumstances, Kim Gyu-sik had to endure a deprived childhood and Emperor Gojong provided compensation to some degree later on by supporting his studies in the United States. While at Roanoke College, Kim Gyu-sik became friends with Yi Gang (李 堈), the son of Emperor Gojong, and Yi Ki-jong (李璣鍾), the eldest son of Yi Beom-jin, a Korean minister in Washington. These friendships seem to have contributed to developing his capabilities in representing Emperor Gojong's diplomacy for independence on the international stage in the future. Such relations also seem to have influenced the appointment of Kim Gyu-sik as a Korean representative to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Emperor Gojong mainly believed in two ideological arguments to strongly support his resistance against Japanese aggression: the view of Korea's historical and cultural superiority compared to Japan and the theory of illegality in the Japanese army's use of force to annex Korea, which violated a series of international treaties that recognized Korea's independence from Japan as well as European powers. The former functioned as a basis for the impossibility of allowing Japan's annexation of nations more advanced than itself such as Korea. The latter laid a legal basis for the Korean people in claiming their liberation from Japan and the reinstatement of Korea as an independent nation state. It is also worth noting that these two arguments were conveyed in Emperor Gojong's personal letter on August 22, 1905 to the Russian Emperor Nicholas II, asking for the Russian government's support at the Portsmouth Peace Conference regarding Korea's independence. They were also melded into Kim Gyu-sik's petition for Korea's reinstatement as an independent nation state submitted to the Paris Peace Conference in April 1919 after World War I. As a natural consequence, the legacy of Emperor Gojong's diplomacy for the independence of Korea prevailed in Hanil gwangye saryojip (韓日關係史料集, the Collection of Historical Records of Korean-Japanese Relations), which was compiled, supplemented and published by the Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai in September 1919 for submission to the League of Nations. 고종황제의 항일독립운동은 누구에게 계승되었을까? 고종은 그의 통치기간 내내 일본의 끊임없는 침략을 받았음에도, 일본과 타협하지 않고 침략에 맞서 강력하게 저항하고 애국지사들을 규합하여 독립운동에 나선 사상적 배경은 무엇인가? 이 의문들은 본 논문을 관통하는 문제의식이다. 고종황제와 김규식이 관계를 맺게 된 것은 고종과 김규식의 부친인 김용원(金鏞元)과의 특이한 인연과 관련이 깊다. 이는 1885년 초 김용원이 고종의 지시에 따라 연해주에 파견되어 러시아임무를 수행하다가 청국의 반발로 유배의 고초를 겪은 바 있었기 때문이다. 이에 불우한 어린 시절을 보낸 김규식의 미국유학은 고종황제의 배려의 산물이었으며, 그가 수학했던 로녹대학(Roanoke College)에서 의친왕 이강(李堈), 이범진의 장남 이기종(李璣鍾) 등과 교우관계를 맺으면서 향후 국제무대에서 고종의 항일독립정신을 대변할 수 있는 인물로 성장할 수 있었다. 1919년 파리강화회의에 한국대표로 김규식이 발탁된 것도 이같은 정황을 그 배경으로 하고 있을 것으로 판단된다. 고종황제가 일본의 침략에 타협하거나 굴복하지 않고 강력하게 저항한 사상적 논거는 “對日歷史文化優越論”과 일본의 침략이 한국의 독립을 인정한 국제조약을 위반했다는 “不法論”에 대한 확신 때문이었다. 전자는 한일 양국민족이 함께 병합될 수 없는 논거가 되었고 후자는 국제회의에서 한국의 독립을 청원할 수 있는 국제법적 근거가 되었던 바, 양대 논리는 한국 독립의 당위성을 열강에 설득할 핵심논리로 자리 잡게 되었다. 이에 고종황제가 러일전쟁을 마무리 짓기 위해 개최된 포츠머스강화회의 기간에 러시아황제 니콜라이 II(НиколайII)세에게 보낸 친서(1905.8.22)와 김규식이 제1차대전의 전후 처리를 위해 개최된 파리강화회의에 제출한 독립청원서(1919.4)에는 위의 두 가지 핵심논리가 공유되고 있다. 또한 상해 臨政에서 국제연맹에 제출하기 위해 편찬한『韓日關係史料集』(1919.9)에도 이 논리들은 체재와 내용이 보완되어 계승되어 있다.

상징천황제와 한국언론: <동아일보>의 쇼와천황 보도를 중심으로

박선영 ( Sun Young Park ) 현대일본학회 2013 日本硏究論叢 Vol.38 No.-

한국 언론은 일본의 상징천황제에 대해 어떤 시각을 피력해 왔을까? 본 논문은 <동아일보>를 중심으로 한국 언론이 해방 후 천황과 천황제에 대해 이제까지 어떤 접근방법을 취해왔는지를 비판적으로 검토해보고자 하였다. 특히 쇼와 천황의 과거사 관련 발언과 사망 직후 비등한 전쟁 책임 문제에 대해 어떤 논조를 보였는지를 분석하였고, 그 논조에서 일관성을 찾을 수 있는지에 주목해 보았다. 또 천황에 대한 호칭 문제가 한국언론에서 어떻게 다루어져 왔는가를 살펴봄으로써, 천황제 관련 보도에서 언론이 객관성을 유지하는 것의 의미를 따져보고자 하였다. 연구 결과, 한국 언론은 천황에 대한 호칭문제에서뿐만 아니라, 상징천황제 자체에 대해서도 일관성 있는 비판적 태도를 보여주지 못했음을 알 수 있었다. 해방 직후에 분출된 천황제에 대한 비판의 열기는 한국내 정치 상황의 혼란과 전쟁의 발발로 제대로 된 비판을 해보지도 못한 채 호칭상의 혼란이라는 형태로만 잠시 나타났을 뿐, 지속되지 못했다. 한국 언론은 1980년대 말이 되어서야 처음으로 과거사에 대한 책임을 지적한 비판을 전개하게 되지만, 그 비판 또한 일관성 있는 대응은 아니었다. 1984년 쇼와 천황의 과거사 발언을 성급하게도 한국민에 대한 ‘사과’로 해석하여 그의 죄를 가볍게 하는 데 앞장섰었기 때문이다. 일본의 우경화로 천황제의 강화가 현실화될 우려가 큰 현재, 천황제 관련 보도에서 한국 언론이 주의해야 할 점을 제시하면 다음과 같다. 어떠한 경우에도 정치적인 고려로 인해 천황제에 영합하거나 과거사에 대한 면죄부를 주어서는 안 된다는 것, 감정적인 대응을 지양하고 언론의 객관성이라는 원칙을 지키는 것이 보도의 역사적인 일관성과대내외적 설득력을 담보한다는 것, 특히 천황은 다른 입헌군주제 국가에서와 같은 ‘국왕’이 아님에도 ‘왕’이라는 명칭을 계속 사용하는 것은 천황제에 대한 심각한 오해를 초래할 수 있다는 점에서 합당하지 않다. 그리고 천황제에 대한 접근은 천황의 좌에 군림하는 개인보다는 시스템으로서의 천황제에 대한 비판과 감시에 중점을 두고 이루어져야 할 것이라는 점이다. This thesis is intended to examine the approach of Donga Ilbo to the Japanese emperor and the symbolic emperor system of Japan in a critical manner. The reports of the media on the remarks of Showa emperor on the past issues and his responsibility for them during the world war II are analyzed to find any coherence in them. The varying titles of Japanese emperor in the newspaper are also examined to reflect the meaning of objectivity in the press. It is revealed that the Korean press did not show consistent and critical approach toward the symbolic emperor system of Japan as well as the title of the emperor. Although its critical approach toward them appeared momentarily in the form of depreciative titles of the japanese emperor in the medium after the liberation of Korea, it did not last long due to political turmoil and the Korean War. The medium pointed out the emperor`s responsibility for the war for the first time in the 1980s, but it was not a consistent response either. It belittled the emperor`s responsibility for japan`s colonial rule in Korea and war crime by interpreting his indirect remarks of the past issues as an official apology toward Korea and its people. As the Japanese government turn rightest, several points are to be made for Korean media. Firstly, they should not let the japanese emperor get away with his war crime issues and his role in the colonial rule in Korea by any political considerations. Secondly, they should avoid emotional responses and persue consistency based on the principle of objectivity. In particular, it is not proper to use the title ‘King of Japan’ to avoid serious misunderstanding because Japan is not a typical constitutional monarchy. Lastly, the approach should be focused on the Japanese emperor system itself rather than an individual.

러시아의 동아시아정책과 고종(高宗)의 연해주 망명정부 구상 (1909-1910)

최덕규 한국세계문화사학회 2011 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.25

In June, 1910, former Korean Army Col. Lee Gab notified Russian commercial attache Goyer in Shanghai of the fact that Emperor Kojong, general commander of voluntary troops of Korean Empire had decided to seek asylum in Primorye. This was Emperor Kojong's final hidden card, well aware of the imminent annexation of Korea by Japan, to deter Japan's such ambition. Emperor Kojong's such plan of refuge in Primorye came against the backdrop of his successful disrupting the invasion of Japan, which assassinated Empress Min in the wake of China-Japan War through the royal refuge at the Russian legation in 1896. Emperor Kojong had a plan to seek refuge in Primorye, where some 45,000 Korean lived to lead the anti-Japan independence movement just ahead of Japan's annexation of Korea. In response, overseas patriotic Korean organizations also tried to deter the annexation through integration of relevant forces. The emperor and patriotic organizations attempted to secure stage for legitimate anti-Japan struggle in Primorye while keenly coping with the rapidly changing international situation. The forces close to the emperor including Lee Sang-seol and Lee Bum-yun who were staying in Primorye to help Emperor Kojong's bid to seek asylum in Russia attempted to set up cooperative ties with Russian armed forces against Japan to turn the Noryeong Province into a basis for anti-Japan independence movement. The plan pursued by Emperor Kojong later turned into a scheme by Russian army in its bid to use the Koreans for the defense of the Far East area, which was seriously discussed by government authorities including Russian Cabinet head Stolivin. Koreans at that time tried to turn Primorye into the basis for independence movement with the setup of legal national organization in return for cooperating Russia in bids to establish an espionage network, with assistance in the area of education and religion. But the plan faced a strong opposition from Russian officials including Russian Foreign Minister Izvolski, cabinet meeting chief Stolypin and Priamur resident-general Unterberger, and ended in failure. They opposed the plan by the army, saying the idea of utilizing Koreans for the defense of the Far East area would undermine the friendly relations with Japan and cause problems in efforts to prevent the influx of yellow-colored people. Emperor Kojong's diplomatic and military independence movement failed, while independence activists like Lee Sang-seol and Lee Bum-yun became the main targets of crackdown by the Russian authorities on the contrary. The duplicity of trust and distrust by Russian authorities on Koreans in Primorye is closely related to Russia's confidence in dealing with the issues of East Asia. In case of proactive pursuit of policies, Russia's trust on Koreans deepened while distrust spreaded widely in case of passive policies. And such pattern repeated in the history thereafter.

연구논문 : 전후 상징천황제의 정착 과정에 나타난 천황대권의 모호성

유지아 국민대학교 일본학연구소 2012 일본공간 Vol.11 No.-

패전 직후, 메이지 헌법 하에서 일본의 주권자였던 천황의 운명은 예측하기 어려웠으나, 신헌법에서 정치적 권한이 없는 ‘상징’적인 존재로 남아 있다. 상징천황제는 일본의 사회구조와 신분제를 잘 드러내는 체제임과 동시에, 일본과 다른 나라와의 차이점을 잘 나타내는 체제라고 할 수 있다. 특히 세계의 군주제 가운데 일본의 천황제는 아시아 태평양 전쟁 시 군부뿐만 아니라 일반 국민들에게도 전쟁의 정당성이며 명분이었음에도 불구하고, 전후에 어떠한 처벌조치 없이 여전히 유지되어지고 있다. 천황이 상징이라고 하는 규정에는 어떠한 특별한 법적 근거가 없다는 것을 의미한다. 일본국 헌법에 명시된 천황의 권능은 맥아더가 초안한 헌법규정과 거의 일치하고 있는데, 당시 일본정치인들이 구상하고 있는 천황대권에 비해 천황의 권능을 대폭 축소하고 있다. 그러나 신헌법 제1조에 나타난 ‘상징’이라는 용어로 천황의 권능을 대변하고 있기 때문에 그 모호함이 더해졌으며, 해석에 따라 천황대권의 본질이 달라질 수 있는 여지를 남겨두게 되었다. 그 결과 현재 일본정치에서는 헌법, 천황, 원호, 국기, 국가 등이 공식적인 상징제도로 기능하고 있으며, 이 가운데 가장 핵심적인 기능을 담당하고 있는 것이 ‘상징천황제’다. 따라서 현대 일본사회를 바라보는 시각에서 천황제와 내셔널리즘, 천황제와 보수화를 세트로 해서 규정하는 경우도 적지 않다. 이러한 현상은 상징천황제가 만들어지고 정착되는 시기에 천황의 대권에 대해 논하면서도 그 진정한 의미와 실행은 애매한 상태로 유지한 모호성에서 비롯되는 것이라고 할 수 있다 After the Pacific War defeat in Asia, it was hard to predict the fate of the Emperor who was Japanese sovereign under Great Japanese Imperial Constitution, but it is left as symbolic existence without political authority in the new constitution. The emperor-as-a-symbol system is showing well social structure of Japan and the system of social position systems, and it may be said that it is showing well the differences with Japan and other countries. Though the Japanese Emperor system of Japan was in legitimacy and ostensible reason of the war to not only the military authorities but also democracy during the Pacific War defeat in Asia, it is maintained without what kind of punishment measures. It mean without what kind of the rule that the Emperor is to be a symbol. The authority of the Emperor stated clearly in the Constitution of Japan almost accords with the constitution rule that MacArthur drafted. And the authority of the Emperor largely reduced in comparison with the Emperor Imperial power that Japanese politicians elaborated. However, because the authority of the Emperor spoke by the vague term ``symbol`` in the new constitution, it left the possibility that essence of the Imperial power of the Emperor changed by interpretation. As a result, a constitution, the Emperor, protection, a national flag, a nation function in a formula-like symbol system by the politics in Japan, and the The emperor-as-a-symbol system is the most core-like function in this. Therefore, many people make prescribe the Emperor system of Japan and nationalism, the Emperor system of Japan and conservatization as a set. It may be said that such a phenomenon is because it maintained the genuine meaning and practice in a vague state while discussing it for Imperial power of the Emperor.

천황의 기원과 한국

야노 다카요시 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2009 평화학연구 Vol.10 No.4

This is the study about the origin of the Emperor of Japan and the relationship between the Japanese Emperor and the ancient Korea. According to the theory of history, the baronial family in Kaya lands left his home and moved to the Japan Islands and built his land in Nara region in the end of 3th century. At that time ancient Korean people already cultivated the rice and had high technique of the cultivation. They believed gods of cultivation and thanked for the harvest. They celebrated the harvest together and enjoyed festivals in the year. It was written that people gathered and ate and drunk and danced all night in the festival in the ancient Korea. The people who went over to Japanese Islands from the part of south Korea initiated the technique of rice farming cultivation and harvest festival. It is recorded that men performed gods and women performed virgin who welcomed god at night. The marriage of god and virgin in the festival promised the good crop in the next year. The first Emperor of Japan spread his extent of influence through the ceremony of agriculture. The Emperor married with virgins in native powerful families as the god of harvest. He ruled Japan Islands through the religion of marriage of agriculture and the blood of the Emperor. The Emperor Tenmu in 8th century built up the system of Japan country. He said he is the god and Japan Islands belongs to him. In this way the religion turned to politics and the Japanese Emperor insists that he has the divine right of King. 본고는 고대아시아 농경민족에 공통적으로 볼 수 있는 고대농경의례와 그 전승으로서의 신혼신화(神婚神話)와 신혼의례(神婚儀禮)가 한반도에서 일본열도로 이동해가는 과정을 천황의 일본도래 전승을 통해 살피고 일본 천황제와 왕권 수립의 과정에 대해서 고찰한 것이다. 신(神)이 처녀와 신혼(神婚)한다고 믿어 온 고대일본에서는 처녀는 신의 아내로 믿었다. 그러므로 인간 남자와의 결혼식은 신의 허락을 받은 의식이었던 것이다. 원래 모계(母系)적 사회를 오래 유지해 온 고대일본에서는 여성은 신과 가까운 존재로 보고 왔다. 고대시대에 천황은 각 지방의 호족(豪族) 등 세력자의 여동생이나 딸을 무녀(巫女)의 자격으로 궁중에 보내도록 하기도 하고 혈연관계를 맺고 지방 세력과의 관계를 확대해 갔다. 여성을 통해 종교적 지배와 혈연적 지배를 동시에 행한 것이다. 고대농경의례는 농경민족에 공통적으로 볼 수 있는 보편적 의례이지만, 한국이나 일본의 경우, 이것이 조신(祖神)신앙과 겹치면서 신(神)과 처녀의 신혼의례(神婚儀禮)의 형태로 전승해 왔다. 특히 일본은 한반도에서 건너온 호족으로 인한 일본열도 지배의 방법으로 종교를 중심으로 민속적으로 천신(天神)과 국신(國神)의 결혼의례가 확대해 갔다. 이것이 일본국가 건설의 핵심사상이고 일본의 건국신화가 되어 국가의례가 되었다. 이렇게 해서 종교가 정치로 귀결했다. 천황가의 신혼신화는 천황가의 일본 도래를 천손강림(天孫降臨)으로 묘사하고 천신의 자손의 가라쿠니 봉우리(韓國岳) 근처에 내린 천황가의 조상신과 땅에 있던 처녀와의 신혼(神婚)으로부터 시작한다. 천신(天神)과 국신(國神)의 결혼이야기를 통해 국신이 천신에게 땅을 양보해서 천신의 지배에 맡긴다는 이야기로 설명되어 있다. 이것은 도래세력이 토착세력을 정복하는 과정을 묘사한다. 이와 같이 일본열도의 국토 지배는 한반도 농경민족의 일본열도 도래와 그 신혼의례를 통해 시작했으며 도래세력에 의한 여성을 중심으로 하는 토착민에 대한 종교적 지배가 정치적 지배로 귀결함으로서 이루어졌다고 볼 수 있다.

現代 韓日關係와 天皇制

朴晋雨(Park, Jin-Woo) 한일민족문제학회 2008 한일민족문제연구 Vol.15 No.-

一九八四年、全斗煥が韓国の大統領として最初に日本を公式訪問して以来、天皇の訪韓問題は日韓両国から繰り返して要請され、検討されてきた。このように、韓国の大統領が機会がある度に天皇の訪韓を要請する理由は何であろうか。また、日本の政府がこうした要請に応じて天皇の訪韓を積極的に検討する利用は何であろうか。そして、もしそれが実現すれば、それは実際に両国の関係にどういう影響を及ぼすのだろうか。この研究では、現代の日韓関係で天皇の存在が表面的に登場するようになる舞台が｢皇室外交｣から始まったという点に着目して、以上のような問題を｢皇室外交｣を中心とする両国関係の特徴のなかで考察してみた。具体的には、両国関係で｢御言葉｣という天皇の発言や訪韓の問題がどういう意味や役割を果たしており、またその問題点は何であるかを検討することである。結論的にいえば、｢皇室外交｣での天皇の植民地支配に対する｢謝罪｣発言や訪韓の議論は、両国の信頼関係の構築や天皇の｢平和｣への意志を強調することによって、天皇の｢権威｣を一層強化させる効果をもたらし、さらには天皇制と過去の侵略や支配の歴史のと間に断絶をはかることになり、決して日本の歴史認識を改善したり、戦争責任の真摯な解決をはかるための努力としてみることはできない。かえって、対外的な配慮や欺瞞としての｢謝罪外交｣や、これに対する日本の右派勢力の攻撃的なナショナリズムの噴出は、両国の間の歴史的な問題の解決をもっと難しくする要因として作用することにもなるだろう。両国の間の過去史の問題は天皇の訪韓とか｢謝罪｣発言として清算したり、封印できる性質の問題ではない。しかも、天皇の訪韓が実現したり、あるいは天皇の｢謝罪｣発言で過去の歴史が完全に終結したものとして見做してしまうなら、これ以上天皇制の侵略責任や戦争責任に対する議論もできなくなり、歴史的な事実は忘却の彼岸に消えてしまう恐れがある。したがって我々は天皇の訪韓や｢謝罪｣発言を要求する前に、まず過去史の問題を解決するための日本の真摯な姿勢や歴史認識を要求すべきであろう。 Since Chun Doohwan visited Japan in 1984 for the first time as a Korean President, the issue of the Japanese Emperor's visit to Korea has been considered and suggested many times in both countries. Why has the Korean government including the current administration occasionally talked about the Emperor's visit? And why has the Japanese government positively examined it responding to the call? What influence can we expect if the visit comes true? This paper deals with those problems, focusing 'the imperial family diplomacy' because the existence of the Emperor has always appeared in the context of the imperial family diplomacy in the modern history of Korea and Japan. To be more specific, I studied what meaning the words of the Emperor, 'the okotoba(お言葉)', and Emperor's visit have in reality and what kind of problems are there. In conclusion, the Emperor may apologize about the Japanese invasion and colonization of Korea and visit Korea but the purpose of those toward peace'. They do not mean to improve their historical consciousness or to resolve the responsibility of war. In fact, the 'apology diplomacy', used as false consideration and rhetoric for a neighbor country, might make the historical solution more difficult between two countries,combined with the possible aggressive nationalism of the right wings. The historical problems between Korea and Japan cannot be resolved by 'Emperor's apology' or his visit to Korea. It is more likely that if the apology and the visit are regarded as an end of history problems, we will have less possibilities to ask how much the Emperor system has been responsible for the invasion and the war. Without putting history into oblivion, we should demand the genuine repentance and the true historical consciousness.

동일본대지진과 천황의 현재성

서동주 한국일어일문학회 2013 日語日文學硏究 Vol.84 No.2

This essay analyzes the political, social and psychological background of the re-emergence of the significant interest to the Japanese Emperor, after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. The Emperor did some activities through the media using the video messages and visitation of the damaged areas, which in turn, awakened the consciousness of the Japanese society. In particular, because of the inability and failure of the government to restore the affected areas and solve the problems caused by the disaster, the Emperor was considered an alternative power to the state. This study, regarding the presence of the Emperor before the masses, depicts the following statements: The words of the Emperor that referred to the reconstruction of the ruined areas had no . In fact, the Emperor didn't indicate any vision in the future. And the Emperor cast off the authority himself. The Emperor talked with the people residing in the affected areas sitting on the floor like them, despite being the emperor. The consolation of the Emperor to his people is based on the central logic, which is the "absence of his vision and authority." By the way, the people had different reactions towards the consolations given by the Emperor and the government. The Emperor's consolation was favorably acknowledged while the government's was not. During the postwar, the Japanese Emperor has been regarded as just a symbol. So unlike the government, the Emperor was free from any political responsibilities over the control and restoration of the ruined areas. The Exclusive favors to the Emperor by the people, it was made possible by free from the political responsibilities of the Emperor. The statement and behavior of the current Emperor after the earthquake definitely mimicked the "National Parade" and "rescript of the end of the war" of the Showa Emperor. However, his appearance, especially in the post-disaster, seems so close to be a "pure symbolical Emperor”. In this sense, it is necessary to understand the political and social existence of the imperial system focused on its "uniqueness." 本稿は東日本大震災の以降、天皇への大衆的な関心の再浮上に関する政治的·社会的·心理的背景の分析を試みている。震災以後、天皇はビデオ·メッセージや被災地訪問などの動きを演出しながら、大衆的な無関心に放置されていた皇室の存在感を反転させることに成功した。それに災害の処理をめぐって政府の現わした無能や失敗を背景に、天皇は国家に代わる権力として見なされることもあった。災害の社会的空間におけるこのような天皇の浮上についての本稿の論旨は次のようである。災害と復興を語る天皇の言語は「理念」を欠ていた。また被災地で現れた天皇の行動はいかなる権威をも否定するかのような態度で示した。すなわち天皇の慰安は、理念と権威の「不在=欠如」をその中心的な論理としているのである。一方、政府の慰安が被災民から否定されたのと違って、天皇の慰安は好意的に受け止められた。こうした現象は天皇が何より災害をめぐる政治的な責任から自由である、いわば「象徴天皇」であることと無縁ではない。言い換えれば政治的に「無害な君主」という位相が、災害の処理をめぐって政治的な攻防がおこなわれる社会的な空間において、天皇の慰安を純粋なものにしたといえよう。震災直後の平成天皇の言動は、間違いなく昭和天皇の「終戦の勅語」と「全国巡行」を模倣したものである。しかしながら、震災社会の日本における天皇はより「純化」された象徴天皇に近いように見える。その意味で、震災以後天皇制の政治的·社会的な在り方については「現代性」に注目した理解が求められるのである。

제국 일본의 엽서 - 강제늑약 및 천황과 전쟁을 중심으로

양동국 가천대학교 아시아문화연구소 2019 아시아문화연구 Vol.51 No.-

This paper examines the meaning of ‘Commemorative Postcards’ published in Imperial Japan as a national state. The postcard is a major propaganda tool of Imperial Japan and contains endless expansion desire. The memorial postcard, which was made in Imperial Japan, could be published in large quantities due to the rapid development of publishing technology with the advent of modern cameras. In this paper, we pay attention to the postcards postcards of the forced merger between Korea and Japan among these posrcards. First of all, this essay focuced on postcards related to the establishment of the Emperor and Japan's war with regards to the desires of Imperial Japan. The postcards of this paper describe the Korean people's desires and cheers for Korea Japan merger, the strong hope of the imperial family of the Korean Empire, future coexistence and prosperity, elitism and sense of superiority. In short, They show the desire of Imperial Japan in the device of ‘manipulated other’ and ‘distorted reproduction’. By the reproduction of printing, it fixes the desires and ideas to the notions and gives them justification along with the ambition of colonial rule. One of the best propaganda mediums to satisfy the desire of imperialism was ‘Postcard’. Japan produced and distributed this kind of postcards in quantity. It played a decisive role in securing the people's elitism in Imperial Japan. The image reproduced in large quantities was propaganda that played a decisive role in the formation of national consciousness that united Empire of Japan and promoted ideology. 본 논문은 국민국가로서의 제국 일본의 형성 속에 발행된 <기념엽서>의 의미를 정립한 것이다. <엽서>의 분석은 단순히 우편 제도 속의 한 매개체로써의 역할에 끝나지 않고 제국 일본의 주요한 선전도구로써 끝없는 확장적 욕망을 담고 있다는 사례를 밝히는 연구이다. 일본에서 발행된 <기념엽서>는 근대의 산물인 사진기의 등장과 더불어 출판 기술의 급격한 진보로 인해 헤아릴 수 없을 만큼 많다. 본 논문에서는 일본에서 발행된 엽서 중 당시 일본의 식민지로 강제 합병된 것을 그린 한반도 관련 엽서에 주목하였다. 한편으로는 근대 천황제를 위시로 한 제국 일본의 욕망에 중점을 두고 천황제의 확립과 함께 제국주의를 표방하며 일본이 벌인 전쟁과 관련된 엽서를 다루었다. 본 논문에서 예로 든 엽서들은 병탄에 대한 당시 한국인의 열망과 환호, 대한제국 황실의 강렬한 희망, 미래 공존과 번영, 선민의식과 우월감 등을 그리고 있다. 한마디로「의도된 타자화」와 「왜곡된 재현」이라는 장치 속에 제국 일본의 욕망을 여실히 보여주고 있는 것이 <기념엽서>였다. 인쇄라는 재생산에 의해 욕망과 관념을 통념으로 고착화시키고 식민지 지배의 야욕과 함께 정당성을 부여하고 있다. 제국주의의 욕구를 채워줄 절호의 선전 매체 중 하나가 <엽서>이었던 것이다. 일본인을 향해 각인시킬 이미지를 대량 생산하여 유통시키며 제국 일본 내의 선민의식을 고착화시키는 데에 결정적 역할을 하였다. 헤아릴 수 없을 만큼 다량으로 복제된 이미지는 제국 일본을 하나로 엮고 그들이 내세우는 이념을 고취시키는 국민국가의 의식 형성에 결정적 역할을 한 프로파간다였다.

박경리의 『토지』에 나타난 일본 천황에 대한 비판인식

김용의(金容儀) 한국일본문화학회 2016 日本文化學報 Vol.0 No.69

The purpose of this paper is to confirm and review Park Kyeongri"s critical recognition of the Japanese emperor by focusing on her 『Toji』. The work of confirming Park Kyeongri"s recognition of the Japanese emperor through her 『Toji』 has important meaning mainly in two points. First, vast knowledge on Japan, Japanese and Japanese culture, which is evaluated as "a novel written as a critique on Japan" among some critics, was contained in the 『Toji』. If it is exaggerated a little, it could be a kind of "Japanese cultural encyclopedia". So in the study on the 『Toji』, understanding of the author"s recognition of Japan, Japanese and Japanese culture has very important meaning. Second, the paper takes the position that Park Kyeongri"s 『Toji』has modern literary history in Korea. The 『Toji』has been published, revising its editions since it had begun as a series first in 1969. It has also been widely known to the public not only as a novel, but also through movies and dramas. So Park Kyeongri"s recognition of Japan, which was described in the 『Toji』, could be thought to have some influence in forming public opinion related to Japan in Korean society. Considering when Korean society began to recognize the Japanese emperor concretely in history, through what process the discussion of the emperor was produced and circulated in the time, and in what way the discussion is functioning now, takes an important part in the study of Korean"s view on Japan. This study presented critical consciousness of Park Kyeongri on Japanese emperor, which was revealed in the 『Toji』, concretely dividing it as iniquity of a title, emperor, and critique on worship of the emperor and its deification.

아키히토[明仁] 천황의 ‘황실외교’에 관한 연구 - 중국 방문을 중심으로

이수빈 ( Lee¸ Soo-bin ) 경희대학교 인문학연구원 2021 인문학연구 Vol.- No.48

본 논문은 국교정상화 20주년이라는 대의명분하에 ‘우호 관계 증대와 친선강화’로 진행된 천황의 중국 방문에도 불구하고 중일(中日) 양국이 첨예하게 대립하고 있는 원인을 명확하게 살펴보고자 한다. 쇼와[昭和] 천황의 사망 후, 즉위한 아키히토 천황은 쇼와 천황 재위 기간에는 불가능했던 아시아 순방길에 오르게 된다. 아키히토 천황의 1992년 중국 방문은 전후(戰後) 일본 ‘황실외교’에 있어서 최초로 ‘아시아·태평양 전쟁’의 상흔이 지워지지 않은 동북아시아에 첫발을 딛고 ‘오코토바’를 낭독한 역사적인 순간으로 그 의의가 크다고 할 수 있다. 천황의 중국 방문은 천안문 사태 이후 중국의 국제적 고립을 타개하기 위한 돌파구로써 중국 정부가 적극적으로 추진했지만, ‘아시아·태평양 전쟁’의 과거사 문제의 결착을 보기 위한 일본 정부의 전략과도 밀접하게 연관되었기 때문에 일본 국내의 신중론과 반대론을 물리치고 추진되었다. 그러나 과거사 결착 없이 중국 인민의 사회적 합의 없이 국제적 고립 타개라는 중국 공산당의 외교 방책 중 하나로 추진되었기 때문에 양국 간의 과거사 문제는 본질적으로 해결되지 않았고, 결과적으로 이러한 한계로 인해 천황의 방중의 의의는 퇴색되었다고 볼 수 있다. Although the Japanese Emperor’s 1992 visit to China was meant to signal increased cooperation and intimacy between the two countries, the relationship between China and Japan has yet failed to overcome the age-long antagonism to date. This paper seeks to define the causes of this failure in terms of the fundamental limitations of Emperor Akihito’s visit to China in 1992. This observation will, in turn, provide an useful lesson and insight for discussing the Emperor’s future visit to Korea. Upon succeeding the throne, Emperor Akihito embarked on a round of visits to Asian nations. This had been impossible during the reign of his father, Emperor Showa. Akihito’s visit to China in 1992 is especially seen as a historical milestone, for it was the first time for the Imperial Family of Japan to take a diplomatic step toward the North Asian countries that had directly suffered from the Asia-Pacific War. Akihito’s visits were made possible by shrewd calculation of interests on both sides. The Chinese government, having been internationally isolated ever since the Tiananmen Massacre, sought a way out by approaching Japan. On the Japanese side, it was deemed as a part of a possible diplomatic solution to the past affairs problem resulting from the Asia-Pacific War, so the government pushed on forward. However, the Emperor’s visit to China left more to be desired in that it was carried on forward by the Chinese government and without sufficient public consensus. Therefore, it never was, nor could ever be, a fundamental solution to the lingering resentment and animosity between the two people. In conclusion, as verified through the fact that China and Japan are still in sharp conflict over the ‘past affairs’ even after the Japanese Emperor’s visit to China in 1992, it is clear that the Japanese Emperor’s visit to Korea should be conducted only after the final consensus of the ‘past affairs’ between Korean and Japan governments has been made and the controversy over different perceptions of history has been resolved between two people.