중국근대의 정치적 개혁사상 연구

Abstract

이 論文은 中國 近代史에서 展開된 政治的 改革運動의 思想에 관하여 考察한 것이다. 中國의 近代史는 西洋勢力의 浸透에 의하여 始作되었으며, 이 外部로부터의 壓力에 對處하여 中國 內部에서 自發的으로 近代化를 圖謀한 것이 바로 改革運動있어다. 太平天國의 亂(1850~64)과 북경조약(1860)을 지난 다음, 中國에서는 一部 高位官僚層을 中心으로 洋務運動이 展開되어 西洋의 技術文明이 部分的으로 導入되기도 하였으나 그것은 政治的 改革運動과는 性格이 다른 것이다. 洋務運動은 中國의 政治的 舊體制를 維持하면서 軍事的인 器機와 技術만을 採擇하려던 運動이었으므로 根本的인 改革은 期待할 수 없었다. 政治的 改革論은 西洋文化에 대한 理解가 깊어 짐에 따라, 西洋 諸國의 富强의 源泉이 다만 物質的 技術的 文明의 發達에 있는 것이 아니라, 그 背後에 있는 政治體制와 精神的 價値觀에 있다는 것을 認識하였을 때, 비로서 그 形成이 可能하였다. 1860年代에 西洋의 政治體制에 關心을 보인 中國의 改革家로는 馮桂芬이 있었다. 勿論, 當時에 그의 改革說을 理解하고 率直히 받아 드릴 狀況이 이루어지고 있지 않았으므로 馮桂芬 自身도 積極的인 改革을 主唱하지는 못하였다. 그의 主張에는 洋務論的 性格과 變法論(政治的 改革論)的 性格이 함께 있었던 것이다. 馮桂芬과 같은 改革의 主張이 여러 사람의 同調를 얻게 되는 것은 1890년을 前後하는 時期의 일이었다. 이 무렵에 變法論을 主張한 代表的 人物로서, 湯震, 陳규, 何啓, 胡禮垣 그리고 鄭觀應과 康有爲를 들 수 있다. 그들의 改革說을 담은 主要한 著述을 考察하여 보면 각각 特性을 가지고 있으면서도 共通된 主張을 찾아 볼 수 있다. 그들은 모두 西洋의 近代的 政治制度의 優秀性을 認識하고 특히, 議院制度를 通한 “君民合治”의 實效를 讚揚하고 있다. 그들은 中國의 富强을 위하여 主로 英國의 立憲君主制의 採擇을 建議하였다. 그러면서 同時에 西洋의 優秀한 政治制度의 淵源을 中國의 古典 속에서 發見함으로써 西洋文化 導入의 合理化를 꾀하고 있다. 1890년 頃의 變法論은 中國의 傳統的 文化遺産이 西洋 近代의 그것 보다 優秀하다는 前提를 가지고, 中學과 西學을 對立시키거나 主와 從의 關係에서 보려고 하였다. 새로운 政治的 改革을 試圖하기에 앞서 그들의 計劃을 傳統的인 思想에 의하여 合理化하는 것은 中國의 歷史上 모든 改革運動의 共通的 特性이다. 그들이 생각하는 傳統的 思想이란 바로 歷史的으로 中國의 倫理的, 社會的, 政治的 指導理念이 되었던 孔子의 思想을 가리켜 말하는 것이다. 淸末에 展開된 政治的 改革運動의 경우에도 復古속에 革新을 꾀하는 傳統的인 態度를 벗어날 수는 없었다. 이 論文에서 특히 重點을 두고저 한 것은 中國近代의 改革家들이 西洋의 近代的 政治體制를 導入하면서 중국의 뿌리 깊은 傳統思想에 如何히 對處하였는가 하는 問題들이다. 中國이 오랜 동안 지녀 내려 온 傳統思想은 原來 中華思想으로 凝結되어 外部 文化에 대하여 排他的인 性格을 지니고 있었으므로 더욱 問題가 되는 것이다. 淸末의 政治的 改革思想은 淸日戰爭(1894-5)의 敗戰을 겪고 난 뒤에 새로운 局面에 접어들게 되었다. 西洋 列强의 帝國主義的 浸透는 中國을 瓜分의 危機에 놓이게 하였으니, 이러한 國際的 狀況의 變化는 中國의 知覺 있는 士人階層에게 緊迫한 危機意識을 품게 하였다. 北京에 모인 數百名의 全國 擧人들이 團結하여 政治的 改革의 上奏를 올린 것은 淸日戰爭 末期의 일이었다. 이때부터 1898年까지 中國의 政治的 改革을 主導한 人物은 光緖帝의 信任을 얻은 康有爲一派의 新進氣銳의 改革思想家들이었다. 그들은 瀕死狀態에 놓인 中國을 救濟하기 위하여는 近代的 政治改革만이 唯一한 길이라고 깨닫고 皇帝를 움직여 積極的인 變法維新運動을 推進하였으니 바로 “戊戌新政”이 그것이다. 康有爲와 그의 同僚들은 大部分 下位官僚 出身이며 學問的으로 公羊學派에 屬하는 學者官僚들이었다. 그들은 變法論을 傳統思想으로 合理化하기 위하여, 孔子의 理想을 西洋 世界의 價値觀과 調和될 수 있도록 꾸미는 努力을 하였다. 그리하여 이 때까지 알려져 있던 孔子의 理想은 잘못된 一面만을 傳承한 탓이며, 孔子의 眞面目은 公羊家의 傳承에 의하여 감추어 내려온 面에 있다고 主張하였다. 康有爲에 의하면 孔子는 六經을 著作하여 이미 二千數百年前에 中國의 歷史的 發展에 對備한 理想的인 憲法을 만들었으며 그 속에 進步를 豫見한 偉大한 精神을 담아 놓았다고 보았다. 이리하여 康有爲는 中國의 傳統的 價値觀의 象徵으로서의 새로운 孔子像을 만들어 냈으니 그것이 “託古改制說”의 要點이다. 그 結果, 西洋 近代의 政治體制의 導入은 孔子의 精神과 背馳되는 것이 아니라 오히려 合致되는 것이라고 解釋할 수 있게 되었다. 康有爲는 光緖帝에게 進呈한 數많은 上奏文을 通하여 日本의 明治維新의 成果를 模範으로 立憲君主體制를 樹立하고 全面的인 政治改革을 斷行할 것을 建議하였다. 制度局을 設置하여 全國의 優秀한 人材를 모아 改革의 具體的 方案을 樹立할 것을 비롯하여, 科擧制度와 官制의 개혁의 改革, 敎育制度, 産業經濟體制의 改革 등을 推進하였다. 戊戌改革은 結局, 保護派勢力의 反對에 逢着하여 百日만에 失敗로 끝났으나, 政治的 改革思想으로서의 變法論은 그 나름대로 歷史的 意義를 지니고 있다. 康有爲의 變法論을 檢討하여 보면 그는 傳統的인 中華思想이나 王朝體制의 保全을 目的으로 한 것이 아니라 近代的인 國家觀에 立脚하여 中國의 改造를 試圖한 點에서 첫째 그의 近代的 意義를 찾아 볼 수 있다. 그리고 保守的이며 排他的이라고 믿었던 傳統思想의 性格을 새로운 角度에서 解釋함으로써 前進的 革新的인 것으로 바꾸어 中國의 歷史的 發展을 促求하는 契機로 삼았다는 點에서 發展的 意味를 發見할 수 있다고 본다. ; The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the thought of the political reform movement developee in the modern Chinese history. The history of modern China started, we may safely say, with the encroachment of western powers upon China. The reform movement itself is, in response to this pressure from the outside, a search for modernization spontaneously generated from the inside of China. After the humiliating experiences of Taiping rebellion (1850-64) and Peking Treaty (1860), China began to accept, in part, the western civilization of technology through Yang-wu (industrialization) movement. However, it was in many ways different from the political reform movement. Essentially, fundamental reform could not be expected from this Yang-wu movement with its reserved attitude of adopting only military technique and machinery from the West while trying to maintain China’s traditional political structure without any change. However, with the advances in the understanding of the essential underpinning of the West’s great power as their political system or spiritual values rather than simple technical or material achievements, the political reform advocacy as an opinion began to be formed palpably in the Chinese political scene. Among early advocates in the 1860’s Feng Kuei-fen(馮桂芬) was most conspicuous. Yet his tone of assertion for reform could not go too far mainly because China of the 1860’s was not ready to understand and accept his innovatory ideas, the ideas in which factors of Yang-wu movement and Pien-fa (political reform) arguments co-existed. It was not until around 1890’s that assertions for reform like that of Feng gained universal currency in the Chinese intellectual world. T’ang Chen(湯震), Ch’en Ch’iu(陳규), Ho Ch’I(何啓), Hu Li-yuan(胡禮垣), Cheng Kuang-ying(鄭觀應) and K’ang Yu-wei(康有爲) can be enumerated as the representative figures of the reform movement of these years. Their reform arguments found in their major writings manifested respective characteristics. Yet some nature common to their respective thought was not impalpable. They all highly estimated the superiority of political system of modern West, especially parliamentary system as a meals to the effect of “monarch-people confluent rule” However, while they eagerly suggested the adoption of British constitutional monarchy they were on the other hand searching for a way of justification of their advocation by tracing the origin of the superior western political system in the Chinese classics. Consequently, the idea of the political reform advocation in the China of 1890’s based upon the premise that the Chinese traditional cultural inheritances were superior to those of the modern West, was still holding on to the contrast between the “Chinese learning” and the “Western learning”, and it was in terms of the principal-subordinate relationship. The process of justification by an authority of traditional thought before a new political reform idea carried out concretely was a common nature of all kinds of reform movement in Chinese istory. The thought called ‘traditional’ of what they authorized was that of Confucius, which for tens of centuries had been the ethical, social, political guiding principle of China. This political reform movement of the late Ch’ing period could neither go beyond this traditional attitude, the attitude of searching for reform within the limit of restoration to the principles of ancient sages. What this research intends to give an emphasis is on how the reformists of modern China responded to the deep-rooted Chinese tradition in the process of adoption of western political system of modern times. That the long-preserved Chinese traditional thought condensed into Chinese ethnocentrism was essentially exclusive of outer-world cultures makes this intention more meaningful. The defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-5) turned the situation to a new phase. China infiltrated by the rampant imperialism of great powers was now at stake of melon-cutting. Such changes in international situation roused acute crisis-consciousness among the sensible Chinese intellectuals. That the candidates of the capital examination gathered in Peking memorialized their political reform advocation in a body was toward the end of the Sino-Japanese War. The leading spirit of the political reform movement from this time to 1898 was that of the young impetuous reformist group including K’ang Yu-wei with the confidence of Kuang-hsu Emperor in him. With their conviction that the only solution to revive dying old China was modern political reform, they recommended to the throne that they carry out vigorous reform policy. “Wu-shu New Administration (1898)” was the acme of their activities. K’ang Yu-wei and his colleagues were, for the most part, of lower rank officials socially, and from the intellectual viewpoint they were scholar officials belonged to Kung-yang School. They tried to interpret the Confucius ideal in accord with the impressive western values, on purpose, to justify their idea of political reform as having traditional authority. Thereupon, they maintained that the true merit of Confucius had been transmitted imbedded inconspicuously among Kung-yang scholars and referred to the Confucius ideal that had come down in their knowledge till that time as being distroted and paritially transmitted. According to K’ang Yu-wei in his “On Confucius as a Reformer” (K’ung-tzukai-chih k’매), the Six Classics had already conceived, about two thousand years ago, an ideal constitution to meet the future Chinese historical progress and put an ‘implicit spirit’ of progress in that constitution. K’ang here created a new Confucius as a symbol of old Chinese traditional values. As a result, their advocation such as the adoption of political system of modern West came to be newly interpreted as being not contradictory to the spirit of true Confucius, but rather as being mutually correlated. K’ang, through various memorials presented to Kuang-shu Emperor, recommended an establishment of the constitutional monarchy modeled after the Japanese Meiji Restoration achievements and that they carry out a full-scale political reform. He suggested an institutionalization of General planning Bureau in which plans for reform were all shaped in detail. Moreover, he initiated the reforms in the civil service examination system, government organization, educational system and industrial economic organization. Although the political reform of 1898, confronted with the strong opposition from the conservatives, was after all frnstated within one hundred days of its coming to the Chinese political surface, this thought of reform still has its own noteworthy historical significance. First, K’ang’s primary purpose was in the rehabilitation of China with an outlook of modern state, not in the simple preservation of traditional Chinese ethnocentrism or Manchu Dynasty. Second, he formed a turning point in the Chinese historical progress by interpreting the old traditional thought, that had been regarded as conservative and exclusive, and by transforming it to the progressive ideas, both with a drastically new standpoint.