The reason for the "destruction of Joseon" is that amateur politicians seek only the king, ruling class, and personal interests at the end of their lives... The international situation is dark, so the "random" outlook induces "anti-elite" hostility among the non-working aristocrats. With the "tragedy" of loss of national power, 19th-century British people were convinced that they had reached the top of the world. Industrial capitalism, which began in the UK, was spreading by connecting the world to a network of goods and finance, and parliamentary democracy, their highest pride, was a political system envied by the world's public. Railroads and submarine telegraphs created by British science and technology have helped Britain build a great empire covering a quarter of the Earth's surface by integrating the world into a single transportation network and communication network. The British, who pride themselves on being the greatest people in human history, not only judged others based on their values such as diligence, self-help, and keeping dignity, but also tried to create the world according to their image through the mission of civilization. In his recently published book, "Twisted Modern," I analyzed comparatively how Britain evaluated Korea and Japan at the end of the 19th century. The reason why the adjective "distorted" was used in the title of academic books was to critically analyze Western modern civilization, which was once regarded as the light that mankind should aim for. The Western modernity was clearly a "distorted" modernity in the sense that it created a distorted world by diagnosing the world with dichotomous standards of self, other people, civilization and barbarism, reason and non-reason, and disparaging the other as inferior peripheral beings. Furthermore, our modernity was also a distorted modernity in the sense that it was embodied in a more distorted form by re-transplanting the distorted Japanese modernity in the process of transplantation from the West. However, even if our reflection in the mirrors of the British is expressed in a crooked form, their points contain cold truth, although they do not want to admit it. The British found distinct contrasting attributes in Korea and Japan. If Japan was the rising "country of the sun," Korea was the "country of the calm morning." However, the image of the 'Silent Morning Country' that we have believed to be compliments without speed was actually identity and decline. Koreans were dirty, rude, and lazy while being polite, clean, and diligent Japanese. However, what was most shocking to the British was the contrast between the strong patriotism of the Japanese, the indifference of Koreans to the country, and Japan, which is effectively ruled, and Korea, groaning with corruption and exploitation. Just looking at these two things, the reason why Japan succeeded in modernization and why we failed seem to be roughly revealed. Compared to the sacrifices of the Japanese leadership, the first thing I realize when looking at Korea and Japan comparatively at the end of the 19th century is the fact that we have neglected to investigate our responsibilities. We have been devoted to blaming others for the tragedy of our history, which leads to loss of national power, colonization, division and war, as geopolitical factors and cold war systems. The reason why we did not consider our responsibility is, of course, because of the existence of a very certain criminal called Japan. In addition, in the name of getting out of the so-called colonial view imposed by Japan, our academic community has not only covered up our faults but has been in a hurry to glorify them. Now, we need the wisdom to actively investigate our responsibilities and make the past a living stone. First of all, let's hear where the British found responsibility for the Korean national network. "It is undeniable that Korea's loss of independence today is largely attributable to the corruption and vulnerability of the old dynasty," said Frederick Mackenzie, the most sympathetic and most critical British journalist of Japanese colonial rule. As he judged, the responsibility for the loss of national power was primarily on the hypocrites, that is, the king and the power surrounding him. King Gojong, who had been in power for 40 years during an emergency period when the country's survival was at stake, produced the inability to miss all the opportunities for Joseon to achieve modernization. He tried to promote flowering in his own way, but when the road conflicted with his own interests, he turned to advocacy of his own interests. As a result, the history of the rebound was followed by the dissolution of the Independence Association, which advocated the constitutional monarchy, and strengthening the absolute kingship. By 1904, the British had concluded that Korea had already missed the opportunity. The hypocrites surrounding the king also did not think from the perspective of national interest. According to the observation of the British, the Korean king and ruling class pursued only personal interests without a public spirit, which was clearly compared to the devoted sacrifices of Japanese leaders. It was the British's judgment that the only principle that moves the Korean ruling elite was the "glory of individuals or families." Personal accumulation was also found in trusted politicians like Min Young-hwan, and Jeon Bong-jun, who led the Donghak Peasant Revolution, also pointed out him as the most representative detective duck. It is shocking to us that Min Young-hwan, who only knew him as a patriot who devoted his life to the Japanese invasion, was pointed out as the culprit of corruption. The situation in which the elite is lacking in public spirit is the same in China, so Yanggyecho attributed it to existing Chinese morality. In other words, Chinese ethics is not focused on the concept of moral virtue that individuals have toward the state or society, but only on the concept of virtue. However, our history is too sad to be exempted from their responsibility because Joseon's hypocrites also belonged to the Chinese culture. Embarrassed "Yangban" The responsibility for the national crisis in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is found in aristocrats, who are social elites, beyond minority politicians. Did intellectuals or aristocrats in a broad sense suggest alternatives to overcome the national crisis? Not to mention the water poloists who insisted on the above political history, but also the East Westernists and the enlightenmentists revealed their limitations in that they remained in a dark and limited outlook on the international situation, and that they were lacking public spirit. Let's listen to the British observation again. According to Isabella Bishop's judgment, who visited Korea several times as a prominent female explorer, aristocrats were people who thought it was not dishonorable for their wives to live on "money earned from hiding and sewing or washing." For Bishop, who believes that it is the worst curse for a healthy person to rely on others, not his or her own labor and effort, the existence of the aristocrats was a sign of Korea's aesthetics. I think this property of yangban is the origin of hostility toward elites prevalent in our society today. Our elites who tried to reign without carrying out their responsibilities. The current demand for equalization, such as the closing theory of Seoul National University, may be an expression of antipathy to elites who have not been able to practice "noblesse oblige" since the Joseon Dynasty. It is impossible that there is an argument in the UK to eliminate elites. The antipathy to the status elite of aristocrats is found in minority radicalists, but it is impossible to imagine hostility to intellectual and cultural elites. This is because no one can deny the contributions of intellectuals such as Locke, Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. It was our tragedy not to have such intellectuals. Intellectual and cultural equalization is a shortcut to the collapse of the country, but the situation in which such demands are raised is also understandable. If more "Seo Jae-pil" is needed, what role should intellectuals in the 21st century play? If our intellectuals learned the world 100 years ago through "Fukuzawa Yugichi" and "Yanggyecho," we now have to produce intellectuals and elites who can sense and predict the future of the world before anyone else. We had exceptions, too. Those like Seo Jae-pil saw through the international situation and saw through the fact that the way for weak countries like Korea to survive among the pillars of the imperialist powers is to make good use of the power relationship of the powers. Seo Jae-pil was different from other intellectuals who had no choice but to accept civilization uncritically and ultimately accept imperialism. And it was his American experience that provided Seo Jae-pil with such an eye. We needed and still need more 'Seo Jae-pil'. It is necessary to have an intellectual perspective to get away from the peninsula's position and have a macroscopic view of the situation. In order to do so, it is necessary not to standardize, but rather to create intellectuals who are superior to intellectuals in any country or society through the best elite education. Producing true elites with the entire society in mind, not the honor of individuals and families like hypocrites and aristocrats at the end of the 19th century, is the most necessary task now. What comes as a second surprise in the observation of British people in the late 19th century after not being found in Korea is the fact that they have not discovered the passionate patriotism found in Japanese people in Koreans. This is an amazing observation in the light of the fierce patriotism shown by the Korean people today, proving that nationalism is neither natural nor inevitable. Nationalism was formed by a reaction to colonialism, not a phenomenon that existed independently. Nationalism became an overwhelming ideology on the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century by winning against orientalism, pan-Asianism, and socialism. In the case of Japan, people and nationalism were born amid the meticulous planning of Meiji leaders. Then, is nationalism still a desirable ideology? When the goal to be aimed at was an independent national state, nationalism was the strongest ideology to mobilize the public, and for that reason, it was able to occupy an overwhelming position. However, the limitations of nationalism are also clear. It becomes clear that national identity is not a concept encompassing the entire nation when considering the beings that have been secondaryized and marginalized in the name of ethnicity and class in our modern and contemporary history, such as the lower class and women. In addition, nationalism is a clear ideology that sets and distinguishes me from others. All ethnic groups in the world have faith in their "scheduled fate" and "myths of glory and salvation." The problem is that when all ethnic groups have consistent beliefs, each ethnic group has no choice but to crush the myths of other ethnic groups to prove that they are the only truth. Therefore, nationalism is inherently and inherently bound to contain destruction.
Many people are also receiving a kind of comfort from their image as the "saddest and most miserable nation" in the world. They are armed with inner and mental innocence and nobility to compensate for their external weakness, and are obsessed with the myth that "the one who suffers the most eventually wins." However, if one country's history is exceptional, many other countries have experienced an exceptionally tragic and disastrous history. We should now be able to abandon this narrow sense of history and look at our own history from an objective and broad perspective. We need creative criticism, not blind affection. It is also obvious that if the society aimed at in the 21st century is a society of pluralistic identity, the exclusive nationalist ideology is no longer a strength. There was no nationalism on its own. The reason why our modernity has become a 'distorted modernity' is that the acceptance of modernity has been achieved through a filter called Japan. Therefore, the discussion of modernity in Korea cannot be considered except for colonialism. There was once a heated debate between the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of colonial modernization. The theory of colonial exploitation basically argues that Korean society in the late Joseon Dynasty had promoted intrinsic development, but independent modernity was frustrated by the imperialist forces as it was incorporated into the world system and colonized. The error in this argument lies in the fact that the inherent development they assume means capitalist development. It is true that Joseon society achieved internal growth, but it was not capitalist development. On the other hand, colonial modernization theory recognizes that Japan's intention was imperial exploitation and exploitation, but it is to admit that our modernity began in the colonial era and its effect is on today. It is worth remembering that scholars branded as so-called "colonial modernists" do not argue that our modernization was possible only by the Japanese power. Their position is basically that although hardware was provided by Japan, our capabilities were indispensable to modernization, and that was the fundamental factor that made us achieve what we have achieved now, unlike many other peoples who have experienced colonialism. The existence of controversy over exploitation and modernization itself reflects the atmosphere of our society that dichotomically identifies colonialism and anti-colonialism and denies the wide range of gray areas existing between the two axes. We will now have to get away from this dichotomy and look into the complex and interlayered structure of Korean modernity and colonialism. Modernization, which began under Japanese colonial rule, had a positive effect and a negative effect. Modern institutions such as the establishment of land private rights, reform of tax systems, demographic surveys, establishment of modern legal systems, and establishment of relations between the state and the people were established at this time, but traditional rights and interests taken in the process were also clear. The important fact is that modernization was initiated by the Japanese imperialism, but that fact did not automatically make Koreans simple passive audiences. Regardless of the Japanese intention, Koreans actively accepted modernity, made it mine, and were active actors who participated in its formation. On that basis, modernization after the 1960s was also possible. Only when you acknowledge the interlayered and pluralistic structure and effect of colonial modernity will you understand that history is a complex process of resistance and negotiation, imitation and challenge, change and re-creation. As recently discussed in this paper, it would be meaningful to find implications for the 21st century in the late 19th century. Of course, it is not the same in many ways 100 years ago and today. At the end of the 19th century, modernity reached its peak. Today, however, we are surrounded by postmodern discourses. Just as modernity is not necessarily desirable, it is clear that postmodernity is also not necessarily a space for freedom and liberation. However, one advantage of postmodernity is that it gets us out of dichotomous rigid thinking. There are also concerns that it ends with relativism and confusion, but it is also true that open and pluralistic thinking is possible. If so, it would be desirable to supplement it with postmodernity while maintaining the positive side of modernity. In the face of the dangerous 'downward equalization' argument, we saw that the biggest responsibility for the loss of national sovereignty 100 years ago lies with the hypocrites. At this critical and critical moment as at the end of the 19th century, the experiments of amateur politicians in our society could pose the same serious danger. All the people should watch with their eyes wide open so that their trial and error do not lead to loss of national power in a different sense. It is also dangerous to argue that the elite should be removed and downgraded based on the past elite's mistakes. Above all, it is not necessary to confuse the upper class of economic and social with intellectual and cultural elites. Elites and the public must create and maintain a social system that recognizes and complements each other. A unified national opinion cannot emerge in a society that despises, excludes, and otherizes each other. At the end of the 19th century, British diplomats were disappointed by the Korean government's incompetence, factional strife, and public indifference, and concluded that Koreans were unable to reform themselves and should be left to Japan. It is time to gather wisdom from all of us so that the same mistakes do not repeat.
In fact, the colonial rule by Japan at the end of the Joseon Dynasty was largely due to King Gojong and Lee Wan-yong's sale to the country.
