본 논문의 목적은 19세기 후반 타슈켄트의 근대화 과정을 통해 러시아식 오리엔탈리즘이 얼마나 효율적이었는지를 살펴보는 데 있다. 에드워드 사이드의 오리엔탈리즘이 당시 러시아 사회에 만연했음을 보여주는 증거는 도처에 나타난다. 하지만 러시아의 경우 오리엔탈리즘에 대한 일반화의 오류에 빠져서는 안 된다는 특이성에 주목해야 한다. 이러한 차원에서 러시아의 오리엔탈리즘에 대한 이론적 고찰을 살펴본 뒤, 1865~1890년대 초 타슈켄트에서 이루어진 러시아의 근대화 작업을 구체적으로 규명한다. 그 후 1892년 발생한 콜레라 폭동에 의해 도시의 경계가 허물어지고 동서 문화의 혼재 속에 러시아 제국이 어떻게 대처했는가를 고찰해볼 것이다.러시아 정복자들은 전통적 오리엔탈리즘의 관점에서 타슈켄트를 유럽적으로 만들기 위해 식민지 공동체를 관리했다고 하겠다. 하지만 불안정한 통치 시스템을 안정시키기 위한 방법은 강압적·약탈적이 아닌 유화적·점진적 노선을 취할 수밖에 없었다. 종교적 간극을 극복하지 못한 러시아 지배층은 교육과 문화적 수단을 동원하여 러시아화 정책을 추구했지만, 그다지 효과적이지 못했다. 전통적인 오리엔탈리스트였던 러시아 지배층이 콜레라 폭동사건을 맞아 겪은 정신적 충격은 그들의 오리엔탈리즘을 변모시켰다. 무시해왔던 무슬림의 전통과 기술을 인정할 수밖에 없는 현실에서 러시아인의 식민정책은 이율배반적임이 드러났다. 하지만 사회적 안정이 회복되자 ‘타자’에 대한 인위적 이미지가 되살아나면서 정복자로서의 권위를 복구하려는 모습이 나타났다. 타슈켄트에서 보여준 러시아의 오리엔탈리즘은 대체로 ‘문화적’이고 ‘소극적’이었다. 지식과 인간성, 보편성과 협력을 통해 제국을 건설하려 했던 오리엔탈리스트는 점진적인 방법을 선택했던 것이다. 그렇다 하더라도 궁극적인 성공은 유럽과 아시아의 벽을 허물고 진정한 동화를 이루어야 했으나, 러시아는 그렇게 할 수 있는 능력도 의지도 없었다. 타슈켄트를 양분하여 다스렸던그들의 시스템은 여전히 동방민족에 대한 멸시와 공포가 혼재했음을 보여준다. 결국 러시아의 문화적-소극적 정책은 타슈켄트의 근대화에 크게 효율적이지 못했다고 볼 수 있다.
The purpose of this paper is clarifying the effectiveness of Russian Orientalism through the modernization of Tashkent in the second half of the 19th century. The Orientalism of E. W. Said ―Orientalism as a Western style of dominating,restructuring, and having authority over the Orient― was prevalent in Russian society at that time, showing that the evidence is everywhere. But it must be noted that should not fall into the trap of generalization of Orientalism in the case of Russia for specificity. We first look the theories of Russian Orientalism,and then the civilizing work of the Russians in Tashkent from 1865 to the early 1890s. Finally, will be investigated what the boundaries of the city was destroyed by cholera riots that occurred in 1892, and how the Russian Empire reacted in the confusion of the East-West culture. Russian conquerors managed to Tashkent colonial community to make European society from the perspective of traditional Orientalism. But the methods for stabilizing unstable governing system were forced to take not coercive-predatory route but appeasement-gradual policy. Russian ruling class did not overcome the gap between religious conflict and pursued a policy of Russification through the educational and cultural means, but was not so effective. Traditional Orientalists transformed their Orientalism by the cholera riots. Because of admitting the reality of Muslims’ ignored tradition and technology, the colonial policy of the Russians became contradictory. However, as soon as restoring of the social stability, artificial image for ‘other’ was appeared and Russian settlers tried to recover authorities as the conqueror.Russian Orientalism shown in Tashkent was generally ‘cultural’ and ‘passive’. While Orientalists were trying to build an empire through knowledge and humanity, universality and cooperation, they had chosen a gradual method. Even so, the ultimate success is to knock down the walls of Europe and Asia and must assimilate truly, but Russia did not have the ability to do so. Their system ruled by bisecting Tashkent still showed Eastern nationalities with contempt and fear. Eventually, it seems that Russia's cultural-passive policy would not be greatly effective to the modernization of Tashkent.
The purpose of this paper is clarifying the effectiveness of Russian Orientalism through the modernization of Tashkent in the second half of the 19th century. The Orientalism of E. W. Said ―Orientalism as a Western style of dominating,restructuring, and having authority over the Orient― was prevalent in Russian society at that time, showing that the evidence is everywhere. But it must be noted that should not fall into the trap of generalization of Orientalism in the case of Russia for specificity. We first look the theories of Russian Orientalism,and then the civilizing work of the Russians in Tashkent from 1865 to the early 1890s. Finally, will be investigated what the boundaries of the city was destroyed by cholera riots that occurred in 1892, and how the Russian Empire reacted in the confusion of the East-West culture. Russian conquerors managed to Tashkent colonial community to make European society from the perspective of traditional Orientalism. But the methods for stabilizing unstable governing system were forced to take not coercive-predatory route but appeasement-gradual policy. Russian ruling class did not overcome the gap between religious conflict and pursued a policy of Russification through the educational and cultural means, but was not so effective. Traditional Orientalists transformed their Orientalism by the cholera riots. Because of admitting the reality of Muslims’ ignored tradition and technology, the colonial policy of the Russians became contradictory. However, as soon as restoring of the social stability, artificial image for ‘other’ was appeared and Russian settlers tried to recover authorities as the conqueror.Russian Orientalism shown in Tashkent was generally ‘cultural’ and ‘passive’. While Orientalists were trying to build an empire through knowledge and humanity, universality and cooperation, they had chosen a gradual method. Even so, the ultimate success is to knock down the walls of Europe and Asia and must assimilate truly, but Russia did not have the ability to do so. Their system ruled by bisecting Tashkent still showed Eastern nationalities with contempt and fear. Eventually, it seems that Russia's cultural-passive policy would not be greatly effective to the modernization of Tashkent.
