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
This article investigates the perception of nation in modern China, reveals the logic of empire internalized therein, and explores the way to examine it. Both the Constitutional Monarchists including Liang Qichao and Republican Revolutionists including Sun Yatsen perceived nation as culture-nation, which is close to the concept of ethnos today. This perception, however, contrasted with the multi-ethnicity of the Qing Empire, which caused both of the groups to establish the concept of one state- nation that includes all the culture-nations within the empire’s boundary, and they regarded the assimilation and integration of various nations as natural in order to achieve one great nation. As a result, the term “the Chinese Nation(Zhonghua Minzu)” has been coined and used since 1905. Even the revolutionists, whose slogan was anti-Manchurian, made it clear before the revolution in 1911 that the revolution was not an ethnic struggle to seclude Manchurians, but a political struggle to overthrow Manchurian government.
In their perception of nation, the right to form a country did not belong to culture-nation, but only to the Chinese Nation which is a state nation. Thus, the state- nation inevitably implied imperialism which aims to combine various culture-nations. This is why Liang Qichao and Sun Yatsen argued that China should implement national-imperialistic policy as Europe and America did. The Chinese Empire in the premodern era had once allowed culture-nations political autonomy on the basis of their own identity, but from now those nations had to be assimilated and integrated as one nation to form the Chinese Nation Empire. This is where national-imperialism boils down to unitary nation.
Nonetheless, Chinese people did not realize that such idea had been internalized in their perception because of the influence of antiimperialistic nationalism and sino-centric imperialism in the premodern era. It is necessary to identify ethnic group, which is close to cultural nation, with nation in order to examine and disclose the internalized imperialism. The notion of state nation, which is based on popular sovereignty, used to serve as a logical basis justifying the expansion of empire, oppressing the ethnicity of minorities. It stands to reason that in the 21st century where popular sovereignty is commonplace, the notion of culture-nation, which embraces cultural diversity, will be used as an intellectual weapon to disclose and examine the repressivism of the notion of state-nation.
In their perception of nation, the right to form a country did not belong to culture-nation, but only to the Chinese Nation which is a state nation. Thus, the state- nation inevitably implied imperialism which aims to combine various culture-nations. This is why Liang Qichao and Sun Yatsen argued that China should implement national-imperialistic policy as Europe and America did. The Chinese Empire in the premodern era had once allowed culture-nations political autonomy on the basis of their own identity, but from now those nations had to be assimilated and integrated as one nation to form the Chinese Nation Empire. This is where national-imperialism boils down to unitary nation.
Nonetheless, Chinese people did not realize that such idea had been internalized in their perception because of the influence of antiimperialistic nationalism and sino-centric imperialism in the premodern era. It is necessary to identify ethnic group, which is close to cultural nation, with nation in order to examine and disclose the internalized imperialism. The notion of state nation, which is based on popular sovereignty, used to serve as a logical basis justifying the expansion of empire, oppressing the ethnicity of minorities. It stands to reason that in the 21st century where popular sovereignty is commonplace, the notion of culture-nation, which embraces cultural diversity, will be used as an intellectual weapon to disclose and examine the repressivism of the notion of state-nation.
목차
I. 머리말
II. 민족인식의 이중성：문화민족과 국가민족
III. 민족인식의 제국성：민족제국주의
IV. 다원적 단일민족론：종족성과 민족성
V. 맺음말
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (39)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Positive Concept of the Nation
Korea Journal
1973 .04
-
Physical Characteristics Of Korean Nation
Korea Journal
1963 .06
-
근대 한국종교에서의 ‘민족’(民族)과 ‘민중’(民衆) : Nation, Nation State, 그리고 Nationalism과 관련해서
원불교사상과종교문화
2017 .12
-
Korea and United Nations
Korea Journal
1963 .11
-
러시아-유라시아 지역의 언어적 특성: 중앙아시아의 ‘민족개념-민족어-러시아어’의 상관관계를 중심으로
러시아어문학연구논집
2016 .01
-
제도로서의 역사학과 ‘민족서사’의 미래
역사학보
2015 .12
-
“Culture” as an Imported Concept and “Korea” as a Nation-State
Korea Journal
2007 .03
-
지구화(Globalization)와 민족국가(Nation-state)
한신논문집
1999 .11
-
“맑스(Marx)”에서 “스탈린(Stalin)”으로 - 맑시즘 민족론을 통해 본 소비에트 민족정책의 역사적 계보 -
史叢(사총)
2013 .01
-
일제 말 총동원 시기 ‘신민≠국민’의 표상과 의미작용의 함수관계 - 김사량 작품을 중심으로
세계문학비교연구
2011 .01
-
근대문학의 조건, 네이션≠국가의 경험
한국근대문학연구
2009 .04
-
The United Nations on the Korean Question Since 1947
Korea Journal
1981 .10
-
Stages of Nation Building in Asia
Korea Journal
1971 .08
-
근대 독일의 역사 경험과 오늘날 민족의 의미: 민족은 파괴적인 힘인가 아니면 건설적 힘이 될 수 있나?
민족연구
2009 .01
-
역사교육에서 민족주의를 둘러싼 최근 논의 : 당위ㆍ과잉ㆍ폐기의 스펙트럼
역사교육
2005 .09
-
오스트리아-헝가리 二重帝國(Austro-Hungarian Dual Empire)의 成立에 關한 小考
경주사학
2006 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-910-002364409