http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 방용식 (검색결과 63 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
유길준의 ‘군민공치’ 사상과 ‘문명 한국’: 국가위기에 대한 진단과 처방을 중심으로
방용식,정원영 한국동양정치사상사학회 2018 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.17 No.1
It is said that one’s power cannot be shared even with his or her own child. It is more so when the power holder is despotic. Figuratively speaking, “Absolute power never divides absolutely,” to borrow a quote of John Dalberg-Acton, an English politician. Despite this, there was a person in Joseon dynasty who openly asserted 130 years ago that the king must divide his absolute power with his people. He further stressed that Joseon dynasty could only be civilized and progress when the king shared his power with his people. This paper reviewed the idea of Yu Giljun(1855~1914), a representative progressive intellectual of late Joseon who insisted on the above mentioned ‘collaborative politics of the ruler and people [君民共治]’ and who viewed this idea as a prerequisite for 'civilizing Joseon.' In relation to the topic, the author borrowed a political theory of Thomas A. Spragens Jr. and his analytical frames of ‘cognition, diagnosis, vision and prescription.’ Utilizing these frames, the author examined how Yu Giljun's idea of ‘the collaborative politics of the ruler and the subjects’ relates to the ‘civilization of Joseon.’ To be specific, Yu perceived Joseon between late 19th and early 20th century as ‘half-civilized’ status [cognition]. The reason of this perception was the ruler’s obstinate adherence to absolute power and Confucian philosophy [diagnosis]. To the eyes of Yu, his idea of collaborative politics had to be realized by the ruler sharing his power and ruling the country in collaboration with the people [prescription]. This was the way for Joseon to become enlightened in the future just like Japan or the UK [vision]. This paper concludes that Yu Giljun’s idea of ‘collaborative politics’ was not a mere adoption of constitutional monarchy, one of the western political systems. His thought was a reflection of the contemporary political reality and an attempt to address the national crisis that Joseon kingdom faced in the late 19th century.
-
-
-
-
-
방용식(Bang, Yong sik) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2016 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.15 No.1
최익현은 조선이 체제의 유지 · 발전을 도모할 수 있는 능력이 와해되던 19세기와 20세기를 살았던 인물이다. 그는 체제적[내부적], 민족적[외부적] 위기에 노출된 조선과 그 인민이 위기로부터 벗어날 수 있는 방안을 의욕적으로 표출했다. 그는 상소를 통해 위기극복 방안을 지속적으로 제시했고, 위기가 극에 달했을 때는 최종적인 수단으로써 의병을 일으켰다. 최익현의 이러한 행동은 조선을 조선답게 하는 가치로서의 중화문명[조선중화주의]을 지키려는 것에 목적이 있었다. 그 방법은 다름 아닌 위정척사였다. 그는 국가적 위기에 노출된 공동체를 수호하기 위해 최선을 다했던 지식인의 표본이었다. 그러나 조선이 일본 식민지가 되면서 최익현이 주창했던 위정척사 사상은 왜곡됐고, 폄훼됐다. 일제는 위정척사 지식인들의 개항반대를 꽉 막힌 국제정세 이해 탓으로 돌렸다. 그들이 개항을 반대함으로써 조선은 근대화에 실패했고, 일본의 식민지로 전락했다고 자신들의 침략을 합리화했다. 이런 인식은 해방을 거쳐 오늘날에도 이어지고 있다. 하지만 최익현의 개항반대는 제국주의화한 일본과 수교했을 때 빚어질 침략을 예견했던 것이며, 그 침략을 반대한 것이었다. 본고는 최익현이 개항을 반대한 이유가 단순히 화이관 또는 조선중화주의에서 비롯하지 않았음을 고찰하였다. 이를 위해 최익현이 일본과의 수교를 반대하며 올린 ‘지부복궐척화의소’ 등 상소문을 중심으로 살펴보면서 최익현의 국제관계에 대한 이해[인식]와 함께 위기극복을 위한 방안[처방]을 분석했다. 필자는 이 논문이 최익현의 사상과 행동이해의 폭을 확충할 수 있기를 기대해 본다. Choi Ikhyun lived from 19th to 20th century. It was the era that Joseon dynastywas not able to sustain its system. Choi consistently expressed in the way that Joseon and its people could overcome a crisis exposed by national identity and social instability. The idea proposed by Choi was ambivalent. On the one hand, he suggested to use ‘Sangso’[a politically official letter]. On the other hand, he recruited Uibyoung[a righteous army]. All these actions came from Choi’s royalty to the sino-centrism and the independence of Joseon. In this vein, Choi reemphasized a ‘Wijeong-cheoksa’[the thought that protect orthodoxy and reject heterodoxy]. Choi was the representative of intellectuals who try to maintain their community. After Joseon was colonized by Japan, they appropriated Wijeong-chuksa as they want. Japan attributed the anti-movement of opening ports by the Wijeong-chucksa intellectuals to ignorance on international relationship. Based on these appropriated arguments did Japan rationalize their colonization, because Joseon had failed in modernization. This negative conception has continued nowadays. However, Choi originally intended to protect Joseon from Japan’s hidden strategy of invading Joseon in the name of a opening port and enlightenment. This article endeavors to prove Choi’s opposition to Japan did not derive from‘Hwaigwan’[the discriminated view on civilization and barbarian] and Joseon sino- centrism. To re-illuminate Choi’s idea and act, this writer scrutinized some Choi’s Sangso which by expressed his understanding on international relationship and his way of solution for overcoming the crisis.
-
방용식(Bang, Yong sik) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2017 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.16 No.1
본 논문은 1862년 전국적으로 발생한 민란 중 2월 14일 발생한 진주민란을 중심으로 민란의 초기발생 과정을 분석했다. 진주민란은 1862년 전국적으로 발생한 71건의 민란 중 가장 규모가 크고 오랫동안 진행됐다. 게다가 진주민란은 저항이 전국적으로 확산되는 계기가 됐고, 당시 민란은 조선의 체제 붕괴를 가속화하는 원인이 되었다. 이와 관련하여 본고는 진주민란을 미국의 역사학자 크레인브린튼이 그의 책 『혁명의 해부』에서 제기한 혁명 분석틀에 의거해 분석하였다. 필자는 이에 따라 진주민란의 원인을 조선의 사회질서와 체제를 떠받쳐온 양반 ‧ 사족의 몰락 또는 위상 하락에 따른 ‘불만족’이라는 심리적 요인에서 찾았다. 특히 크레인브린튼이 분석한 혁명발생조건에서 가장 중요한 전환점이 되는 ‘지식인의 이반’이라는 측면에서 민란을 주도한 유계춘, 모의자로 지목된 이명윤 등 사족들의 역할을 살펴보았다. 1800년대에 들어서면서 사족은 그 특권이 약화되고 위상이 급격히 낮아졌다. 이는 17세기 이후 진행된 양반 수 증가, 중앙정부의 지방통치정책 변화, 세도정치로 인한 관료사회 진출 봉쇄 등 사회 ‧ 경제적 변화 때문이다. 사족들은 이러한 이유로 불만을 느껴 조정에 대한 충성심을 약화시켰고, 향촌사회의 유지와 운영으로부터 마음을 접었다. 결국 그들은 국가 또는 체제의 수호자가 아닌 비판자로 변하였으며, 재정악화를 겪던 지방정부의 과도한 부세(賦稅)정책에 대해 민심과 연합함으로써 그들의 불만을 ‘봉기’라는 극단적인 형태로 터뜨렸다. This study analyzed the beginning stage of process of uprising in 1862, on focusing Jinjoo uprising taken place on February 14. Jinjoo uprising was one of the 71 uprisings taken place in 1862 and the largest one that lasted for a long time. Additionally, it was the momentum for the resistance against the government to expand all over the country. And in those time, uprising accelerated the collapse of Joseon dynasty. This thesis explains the Jinjoo uprising is more significant among uprisings in 1862 by the analysis frame with which Crane Brinton, american historiographer. He analyzed the processes of revolution in his book “The Anatomy of Revolution”. In this side, I tried to analyze the reason of Jinjoo uprising as the unsatisfaction that collapse or weakness of privilege of Yangban ‧ Sajok. Especially, I considered the role of Sajok[Lee Myongyoon, Ryu Geychoon, Lee Gyeyoul etc.], because Sajok who expressed intellectuals took a key role in many uprising. And so called, the transfer of allegiance of the intellectuals was regarded most important conditions of revolution in Crane Brinton’ book. In 1800s, the privilege and social status of the Sajok decreased. It originated in the change of ruling policy, the blockade of entering the government due to Sedojeongchi, andthe social economic change. These made Sajok transferred the allegiance of ruling party and abandoned the responsibility of maintenance or management in their village. And they burst their dissatisfaction in uprising on the excessive taxation of the central and local government. After all, sajok who alienating from the ruling system conspired or led the uprising in 19th century.
-
방용식 ( Bang Yong Sik ) 한국문명학회 2019 문명연지 Vol.20 No.1
By the mid 17th century, collapsed Ming dynasty that ruled China proper, Joseon dynasty declared itself the centre country of the world. And then it began to build the various symbols that succeed the legitimacy of sino-centrism. Joseon dynasty constructed ‘Daebo-dan’[the alter for repaying the kindness of Ming dynasty], and edited history of Song dynasty and Ming dynasty. Some historian define it as ‘Joseoncentrism’ and gave the significance to it, others underestimate it as a ideal ultra-nationalism. Even though they had a lively argument on ‘Joseon-centrism’ and drew attention to academic circles, but had a critical boundaries that did not understand its political aspect. For, actions related to ‘Joseoncentrism’ of Joseon dynasty, in those times, aimed to many political purpose. And we have to consider ‘Joseon-centrism’ in political aspects, because political thoughts does generally reflect real politics. But almost korean historians understood ‘Joseon-centrism’ as an ideology, without consideration its political traits. For this reason, this article aimed to understand ‘Joseon-centrism’ on political views beyond of historical. This studied that why Joseon dynasty declared the centre country that should be perceived as a model of civilization, and that how it tried to perform its duty as the centre country of the world.
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
