문화대혁명, 진보인가 반동인가? - 베이징 초기 홍위병 운동의 쟁점에 대한 재검토를 중심으로 -

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to create a comprehensive survey of the modernity and universality that the issues and conflicts from the Cultural Revolutionary period hold from a new perspective through political keywords that are central and widespread in modern society. To achieve this, the paper puts its focus primarily on subjects regarding the Red Guard movement in the early days of the Cultural Revolution and at the same time, limits the area of study to Beijing to provide as much context as possible on the social conflicts of the time. The study especially focuses on the “fairness-justice” and “discrimination-hate” discourse-a core social discussion in Korean society today-as a medium to reinterpret the string of specific contexts. I consider these discussions as a form of “post-revolution discourse” encompassing the democratization process its outcome. “Post-revolution discourse” has been adopted as a means to readdress the Cultural Revolution because discussions concerning the Cultural Revolution can also be understood as a form of “post-revolution discourse” regarding the achievements of the 1949 Socialist Revolution. The objectives of social activism in the 20th century are relatively clear. It aimed to establish a just policy that would allow for a fair distribution of resources and the abolition of all discriminatory practices. China took the path of socialist revolution and Korea took that of democratic movements. While both countries’ movements bore fruit, both also had clear limitations. The question is: how should the social responses to the shortcomings be compared and evaluated? This is not, by any means, an attempt to equate China in 1966 and Korea in 2021, nor is it a bid to force ideological standards that distinguish revolutions and reactions upon each party. What this paper strives to accomplish is to investigate the possibility of utilizing different historical experiences as a cross-reference for pioneering interpretations, despite uncertainties as to what is truly revolutionary and what is reactionary.