earticle

영어

This article studies how modern Japan has maintained international order within the international order of pre-modern East Asia, how it differentiated the '華' from the '夷', and how this should be identified within the history of East Asia. Some key points of this article are as follows. First is the fact that the tendency of Japan to regard itself as a divine nation grew stronger with the change in the traditional world view of Japan, and that this was a basis for a change in international order. Since ancient times, Japan maintained a mythological world view, but with the influx of Buddhism this changed into a three nation world view(三國世界觀) of India(天竺)․China(震旦)․Japan(本朝). This view became established as the traditional world view of the warrior family society. Then since the mid 16th century when Western Europe began penetrating Japan and the influence of Buddhism began to fade, the view changed to comprise the West․China․Japan, and around the time of Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion into Joseon, the divine nation view of Japan was reinforced, finally leading to the view that '本朝=Japan=divine nation' after breaking away from China when the Chung dynasty took over the Ming. Then in the 18th century effects of 'the study of Japanese classical literature'(國學) led to the two nation world view(二國世界觀) comprised of the West․Divine Japan(神國日本). Secondly, the 'Japanese Centrism' theory which is a development on the 'Japanese Idea of Centrism' connected with the concept of 'coastal defence'(海禁)-the foreign polices of controlling the seas-which was commonly found throughout the world and became firmly established as a academic term representing the Japan centered international order after the Chung dynasty was established. However, there still existed too many problems for it to be viewed as a theory encompassing the entirety of the East Asian international order. Such issues were results of reinforcing Japan centered 'centrism' without conducting an overall review of the relationships with relative nations. Third, 'Japanese Centrism' recognizes the 'Centrism order' of nearby empires(China․Joseon․Ryukyu[琉球] etc.), but from another perspective includes the relationships of the '4 diplomatic windows'(四つの口) of Joseon․Ryukyu․Ezo(蝦夷)․Netherlands․China in 'Japanese Centrism', thus giving rise to a contradictory aspect. When limiting this to Japan, it can be evaluated as a characteristic of the 'Japanese Centrism' and when considering the entire East Asian region, the achievements and significance of the theory can be evaluated by regarding it as a beneficial methodology of history that departs from the international order centered around China and emphasizes the political independence of nearby nations. However, the issue of whether we can evaluate such a Japan centered international order(though this is the same in the case of other nations) not recognized mutually by the nations comprising the international relations of East Asia as 'Japanese Centrism' should be reconsidered in light of globalism and the study of transnational history.