뉴스레터

Western academics' interest in the relationship between Korea and China in the Joseon Dynasty was mostly concentrated during the opening of the port(1876). This is because the 19th century is the starting point of interest in the East Asian international order. Interest in pre-modern times began in earnest after World War II, and in 1969, the book "The Chinese World Order" laid the foundation. It is the Korean scholar Jeon Hae-jong who wrote a chapter on the relationship between Joseon and Qing in this book. His view greatly influenced the perception of the relationship between Korea and China during the pre-modern period of Western academia. Over the next half century, a paper on the relationship between Korea and China in the Joseon Dynasty was often published. Among the perceptions shared by these studies, I briefly introduce three things that domestic academia will be interested in.

Was Joseon an exemplary 'Tributary State'?

The view of Jeon Hae-jong, who viewed the relationship between Joseon and Qing as 'typical', is still valid in Western academia. There are a few cases of using the expression 'model' or 'good example' for Joseon. It comes from the understanding that it maintained ideal reciprocity in various fields such as tribute, investiture, politics, diplomacy, trade, and culture. By paying tribute to Ming and Qing, Joseon was able to secure national security, autonomy, and dynastic legitimacy on the international stage. Imports of culture were also a major gain. Ming and Qing tried to prevent military threats in the east by putting Joseon as a faithful tributary. They emphasized the geopolitical position of the Korean peninsula, which can check the Manchuria and the Japanese archipelago at the same time.

However, depending on what the evaluation is based on, Joseon may be an exceptional case rather than a ‘model’. This issue of standards was also controversial at the time of the publication of 『The Chinese World Order』. Usually, Western academia is very interested in trade, and it does not pay much attention to the investiture itself. The more we emphasize the frame of tribute and investment, the weaker the framework to explain the various trade practices outside it. This is why China-led international order is called a tribute system, but it does not use the term ‘investiture’. Therefore, Joseon, which maintained the relationship between the emperor and the princes, can be regarded as an ideal model. But at the same time, this is a very exceptional example. This is because the relationship between Joseon and Ming and Cheong was ‘political’. Especially, when we look at the attitude of Joseon, who still obsessed with the righteousness of the Ming Dynasty even after the Ming collapsed, their relationship is very exceptional.

Was Joseon a self-governing state?

Western academia often understands the political authority of Joseon on the international stage as 'autonomy'. Although there is no meaning of 'independence' in this word, it is generally used as 'self-government'. It is even more so in international politics and diplomatic terms. It is also very different from the meaning of 'sovereign', the word used in 『Man Guk Gong Bup』. In other words, Joseon is a foreign country of Ming and Qing, but it is a self-governing country that is not interfered by submit to the stronger itself. In terms of the time, it is a tributary. This is why Joseon is expressed as 'vassal' or 'tributary' of Ming and Qing. It is a part to be carefully handled in domestic academia, which is accustomed to seeing tribute and investment as only formal.

It is a part that should be handled carefully in domestic academia, which is accustomed to seeing tribute and investiture as only a form. The attributes of relationships vary from time to time. In the relationship between Korea and China during the Yuan-Ming-Qing period, which had the capital city in Beijing, the centripetal force toward Beijing was much more powerful than before. Joseon was not subject to negotiations during the Japanese invasion of Korea, and when establishing diplomatic relations after the opening of the port, the Qing Dynasty always intervened like a guardian. These points make us worry about whether there was an independent diplomatic power in KJoseon.

Qing was an imperialist to Joseon?

The common interest in the study of the nature of the relationship between Joseon and Qing in the opening period is how to define the nature of the Qing policy that explicitly intervened in Joseon. In the early days, the understanding that Western imperialism was accepted and applied to Joseon was mainstream. Recently, it has been argued that the Qing Dynasty did not have the power or intention to colonize Joseon, and that it can be regarded as informal imperialism. There is a movement to understand this in the extension of traditional relationships, but it is still a minority view. This discussion is more active in domestic academia. In particular, in the emergency situation, traditional tribute and investiture relations appeared to be in a form of increasing interference with Joseon. This view is somewhat more active than Western academia. In contrast, the response to the view of informal imperialism has not yet emerged on the surface.

There are some papers in the English language about the relationship between Joseon and Qing in the pre-modern period. However, the papers tend to stay in existing logic. There is also an article about the relationship between Joseon and Qing in transition from Ming to Qing. However, they are only about introducing specific materials, such as letters sent by Hong Taiji to Injo, or explaining plots. This is related to the reality that there is little study on Qing Invasion of Joseon, compared to the recent increase in study of the Imjin War in Western academia. Because Western scholars recognize Qing Invasion of Joseon as a military operation carried out within the long-term war that Manchu tried to conquer the Central Plains.

A Story to Add

On the surface, the relationship between Joseon and Ming Dynasty, and the relationship between Joseon and Qing Dynasty are almost the same. But when we look inside, they are very different. This is why we should pay attention to the fact that the names of records written by Ming Dynasty envoys during their visit to Beijing are almost all Jochunrok(朝天錄), and that the names of records written by Qing Dynasty envoys during their visit to Beijing are almost all Yeonhaengrok(燕行錄). As you can see from the name ‘The record of meeting with Son of Heaven in tribute’ and ‘Records of Visiting Yanjing’, The perception of Beijing in Joseon was very different according to the time. With the transition from Ming to Qing, the name of Beijing was changed from Celestial Dynamic(天朝) to Yanjing. There are countless such cases. Korean history majors recognize these differences, but it is hard to understand for Western scholars. This is the limit of Western academia that only macroscopically examines seemingly visible relationships.