18차당대회를 앞두고 중국공산당 내부에서 권력투쟁과 노선 갈등이 고조되던 2011년 말 보수파의 싱크탱크로 활동하던 청화대 국정연구원장 후안강은 제2대민족정책의 이슈를 제기하였다. 제2대민족정책은 페이샤오퉁의 중화민족실체론을 논리적 출발점으로 하여 발달해 온 당내 보수파와 강경 성향의 주류 한족 학자들의 견해를 대변한 것으로 보인다. 18차당대회를 앞두고 시진핑 체제의 민족정책 전환의 명분을 선점하려는 의도에서 비롯된 것으로 보이는 후안강의 문제 제기는 소수민족 학자들과 소수민족관련 부문에서 일하는 상대적으로 온건한 성향의 전문가들에게 위기의식을 불러일으켰으며, 유례없는 일대 논쟁이 전개되었다. 후안강의 문제 제기를 계기로 하여 촉발된 논쟁은 2013년 말 현재까지 진행 중이다. 본고는 논쟁의 배경과 경과 및 그로 인해 드러난 문제점들을 비판적으로 검토해 보고자 한다.

At the end of the year of 2011, while the struggle for supremacy has been culminating inside the CCP at the dawn of the eighteenth National Congress of CCP scheduled in the next year, Hu Angang proposed the issue of the second stage nationalities policy. Hu, director of The Institute of State Affairs at Qinghua University in Beijing, was a member of think tank which has been supporting conservative faction inside CCP. With his proposal of the policy, he asserted a total change of existing nationalities policy aiming at the abolishment of affirmative actions and preferential benefit for ethnic minorities including political autonomy, economic aids, social favours and cultural identification. Apparently, Hu seemed to speak for the Chinese scholars who shared the conservative view in terms of ethnic minorities policy with the hard liners inside CCP, furthermore, with vast Han Chinese people holding up the nationalist feeling. His assertion was firmly grounded on the idea of ‘the theory of giving substantial nature to the nationality of Cultural China[Zhonghuaminzu]’, which was developed by Fei Xiaotong in late 1980`s and inaugurated as the official discourse of national agenda dealing with ethnic minorities affairs. Hu`s proposal seems to be a way of casting an advanced agenda to initiate a new conservative trend for fixing future framework of ethnic policy hopefully taken by the new leadership of Xi Jinping. Ethnic minority scholars, bewildered and swayed by a sense of predicament, put forward strong criticism against Hu`s proposal, which entailed a ferocious debate and is ongoing up until the end of the year 2013. The arguments, produced in the course of debate, not only show the dominant authority of nationalism overwhelming the domain of academism and politics, but also reveal the narrow borderline of public sphere in the issue of ethnic affairs as well.