文化政治期的檢閱政策與殖民地媒體

Abstract

文化政治期的媒體開放，主要起因於三‧一獨立運動；另一方面，這也是日本帝國新政策的一個結果。其是為了在同化政策與武斷統治的對立之間尋求突破。從「禁止」轉向「管理」的這個新任務，則委由檢閱體制執行。其理想目標，係透過「媒體」這個中立性的地帶，讓朝鮮人民自發地將帝國的意志內化，然而帝國並沒有意識這需要時間與耐心。整個文化政治期對朝鮮媒體的壓迫，反映了統治者的過敏與焦慮。管理的正面功能（殖民現代性的擴散）與負面影響（朝鮮做為現代主體的自我意識）的兩難困境，是開放與規範之所以諷刺地共存的理由。最初伊始，檢閱體制遭遇到來自朝鮮媒體的各種挑戰，關於其合法性與自律領域─開放下的媒體控制─的問題被提出。不久，此緊張關係引發《新天地》與《新生活》筆禍事件的劇烈衝突。隨後，1926 年8 月對《開闢》處以出版禁止的強硬立場，顯示了媒體政策違背於其最原初的目標─殖民地朝鮮的穩定性─的內在危機。最重要的是，由於統治者─冒充支持者的壓迫者─的兩面性，大大地損害了統治者的政治正當性與道德性。《開闢》的廢刊，文化政治期最嚴重的媒體壓迫事件，發生於日本初展開其帝國擴張的時間點。最後，關於《開闢》廢刊與文化政治的終結對朝鮮媒體命運產生的影響，可以提出幾個假設。第一，朝鮮合法媒體的社會影響力被急遽地削弱，導致非法出版之重要性較以往增大。第二，顯而易見地，接下來的媒體政策主要是壓迫雜誌，懷柔報紙。第三，《開闢》的廢刊，可能成為導致朝鮮雜誌朝向三種類型─日常性、實用性與專業性─分化的契機。此後，再也沒有任何雜誌能夠取代《開闢》的整合性與中心性，其領導地位被去政治化的媒體所主導。統治者傾其全力於檢閱體制的強化，係為了朝鮮媒體的去政治化及媒體之間的相互孤立。這導致了統治者不得不投入更巨大的管理成本。

Media liberalization during the Cultural Rule era was primarily due to Samil (March, 1st) Independence Movement, on the other hand, a result from a new policy of Japanese Empire. It was for a breakthrough in the standoff over an assimilative integration and military rule in Korea. The new task—turned from “prohibition” to “control”— was entrusted to censorship system. There was an ideal goal that Korean people would be spontaneously predisposed to internalize the dignity of imperial Japan through a neutral zone—the media— but lack of awareness it needed time and patience. The oppression toward the Korean media throughout the Cultural Rule Era reflects the ruler’s nervous anxiety. The dilemma—managing right function (diffusion of colonial modernity) and adverse effect(self-awareness as modern subjects of Korean) both—was the reason why liberalization and regulation ironically coexisted. From the first, the censorship system encountered various challenges from Korean media raising a question of its legal legitimacy and the antinomy—media control under liberalization. Before long, this tension led to violent clashes as the cases of SinChŏnji and ShinSaeng’hwal. And a subsequent hard line as prohibition of Kaebyŏk’s publication in August 1926 meant internal crisis of media policy, on the contrary of its original aim—stability of colonial Korea. Above all, the ruler’s political legitimacy and morality were seriously damaged because of its Janus-faced way—a depressor posed as a supporter. Kaebyŏk’’s discontinuance, the most critical case of media suppression during Cultural Rule Era occurred at the moment Japan was just beginning its imperial expansion. In conclusion, several hypotheses could be suggested here about what end of Cultural Rule with the Kaebyŏk’’s disclosure caused in fate of the Korean media. Firstly, the social leadership of Korean legal media sharply weakened and as a result, social gravity of illegal publication’s importance increased. Secondly, it became obvious that the then media policy was mainly oppression against magazines and appeasement toward newspapers. Thirdly, closure of Kaebyŏk might be a trigger which caused Korean magazines to be divided to three types—ordinariness, practicality, specialty. Afterwards, such integrity and centrality Kaebyŏk had realized were never replaced by any magazine, and its leading role was generally occupied by non-political media. Authorities concentrated their energy on intensifying censorship system for Korean media’s depoliticization and mutual exclusion between its members. That is to say, there needed much more cost in managing them.