이 논문의 연구목적은 한국의 대표적 민족주의 사상가로 평가되는 白岩 朴殷植(1859-1925)이 한일합병 이전 사회진화론의 영향 하에 쓴 주요 논설들과 한일합병 이후에도 사회진화론의 사상적의 추이를 잘 살펴볼 수 있는 저술 〈夢拜金太祖〉(1911)을 살펴보아, 한국에 토착화된 서구의 사회진화론이 한국 근대 민족주의 형성에 역기능이 아닌 순기능을 하였음을 사상사적으로 해명한 것이다. 나아가 강대국이 아닌 약소국의 처지를 반영하여 토착화된 사회진화론을 사상적 가교로 하여 형성된, 그의 민족주의의 정치사상적 위상을 살펴본 것이다. 박은식의 사회진화론은 대외적으로 자주와 독립을 유지하고 대내적으로 민족통합과 국민국가의 형성을 뒷받침 할 수 있는 이론으로서, 동시에 한일합병이후에도 일관되게 「優者」가 되기 위한 「교육」「학교」「사업」과 같은 자강 독립의 방책으로 한국 근대 민족주의 형성에 순기능을 할 수 있었던 것은, 그의 사회진화론의 수용양식이 우승 열패적 세계관, 문명경쟁론 그리고 단합론에 기초하여 오늘의 약자는 내일의 강자가 될 수 있다는 「優勝劣敗」論의 약소국 민족주의의 이론적 성격이었기 때문이라 볼 수 있다. 따라서 박은식의 사회진화론은 한일합병이후에도 일관되게 독립에 대한 희망을 버리지 않는 반식민 독립운동의 사상적 기초가 되었으며 저항적 엘리트들의 반제국주의 투쟁의 동력이 되었던 것이다. 한편 자신이 전개한 「자강」ㆍ「독립」운동의 국력강화책인 「교육」과 「식산」운동이 좌절한 것은 사회진화론의 수용에 기인한 외세의 인정이 아니라, 대외적 배타성과 한민족의 정체성을 가지지 못한 위정척사파의 尊華攘夷論의 주자학적 도그마티즘 때문으로 보았다. 이러한 사회진화론을 기반으로 한 그의 민족주의의 성격은 서구의 사회진화론이 패권적 팽창적 제국주의적 강대국 민족주의적 형성을 보여주는 것과 다르게 민족적 해방적 저항적 약소국 민족주의의 전형을 보여주는 것이라 할 수 있다.
The purpose of this research is to investigate how the adoption of Western Social Evolutionism in Korea formed the bridge to the consciousness of Korean modem Democracy. The leader of this adoption, representative democracy thinker Eun-Sik Park (1859-1925), is the central base to this research, from which further research on his political position on democracy is conducted. Until 1910, Eun-Sik Park's writings and discourses were dominated by the theory of Social Evolutionism. However, after Korea lost its national sovereignty due to Japanese annexation in 1910, Park penned "夢拜金太祖" (1911), which revealed a major shift in his thoughts regarding Social Evolutionism. "夢拜金太祖" generally speaking, is a contemplation of the concepts of "Strenuous Efforts" and "Independence", and ideological movements based on self-determination which he himself advocated. Thus, 夢拜金太祖 is crucial material for the understanding the overall picture of the early stages of the Korean independence movement. It reveals that after 1910, to Park, Social Evolutionism was not an ideology in which the weak admits inferiority and follows the strong, but was interpreted by him to be a theory that supports the belief that today's weak can become tomorrow's strong. Indeed, there is no doubt that Park did accept Social Evolutionism and admits his role in justifying the struggle for existence in the game of survival of the fittest; however, it is important to note that he rejected the notion of the strong subjugating and oppressing weak nations, but advocated the idea that for the weaker nation to survive, individual members of that nation should make a collective effort for progress. His belief is of that the accumulation of these individuals' efforts are intrinsically connected to a nation's progress and her independence. Moreover, his position is not one that equates one having a positive mindset of about being colonized to one admitting his or herself as a loser, but a position that sees the only way for Korea to escape from being knocked off by natural selection and losing her national right is to become the "strong"; to Park, that was the only "rule." and adherence to this rule is possible by way of a nation's continuous efforts and contemplations. And therefore, his works frequently emphasized the importance of work, education, and knowledge as critical pillars of a grand design for independence. Through this perspective, he recognized and accepted the value of Social Evolutionism; to him, it provided a prospect of saving the nation, and he understood it to reflect that because Korea did not champion progress, it was reduced to a colony of Japan. But he remained positive to reality, and advocated and took part in what he saw as the attempt to rejuvenate the power of the Korean nation through strenuous efforts and independence movements. Viewed in this manner, his acceptance and interpretation of Social Evolutionism is certainly one that envisioned a bridge to Democracy. Indeed, Park's nationalism was an incredibly flexible principal, one that unified the nation's sense of unity, which subsequently made the construction of a national identity and a national state possible. Indeed, the grand product is a image that provides a place for belonging and identity to a socioethnic group; a special meaning of home is also implicated with belonging, so it rouses emotional loyalty and participation among the members of group who shares the experience of subjugation. Out of this special meaning, emerge the roots of liberating nationalism.