일제 시기 식민지 조선에서 국민은 일본제국의 신민, 천황의 신민으로서의 황국신민의 정체성을 지닌 주체를 뜻했다. 다시 말해 황국신민은 일본 천황에 대한 일방적 복종과 희생을 강요받는 국민을 의미했다. 이와 같이 일제 시기에 통치적·정치적 맥락에서 나온 국민이라는 개념에는 신민으로 상징되는 식민성이 내재되어 있었다. 반면 독립운동에서 국민은 독립의 주체를 뜻하는 개념으로 쓰였다. 신민으로서의 국민에 담긴 식민성과 정반대로 독립운동에 등장하는 국민에는 저항이라는 반식민성이 드리워져 있었다. 한편 식민지 조선에서 시민적 가치와 함께 국민으로서의 신민적 가치를 품은 공민이 존재했다. 공민은 반(半)시민이자 반(半)신민을 뜻했다. 신민적 가치를 강요당하면서 입헌자치의 권리를 누리지 못하는 공민 역시 식민성을 지닌 개념이라 할 수 있다. 조선인사회에서의 시민은 시민계급, 시민사회, 시민주의, 시민의회를 비롯하여 시민대회와 같은 합성어 안에 존재하면서 참여와 대안의 주체라는 의미를 품고 있었다. 또한 시민은 상설적인 시민 조직이 허락되지 않는 상황에서 시민대회라는 형식으로 식민권력에 대응하는 시민운동을 펼쳤다. 그것은 식민체제 내에 똬리를 튼 반식민성을 상징적으로 보여 주는 역사였다. 국민과 시민은 오늘날 정치적 주체를 대표하는 개념으로 널리 쓰이고 있다. 게다가 시민운동에서 종종 운동 주체로서 시민과 국민을 혼용해 쓰듯이 두 개념이 호명하는 주체로서의 대상이 분명히 나뉘질 않는다. 하지만 일제 시기에 국민과 시민은 완전히 의미가 다른 개념이었다. 또한 식민 상황에 있었던 만큼 국민과 시민 개념은 모두 식민성과 반식민성을 동시에 품고 있었다. 개념이 시대를 반영한다는 것을 국민과 시민만큼 잘 보여 주는 개념은 없을 듯하다.

In colonial Joseon, there was a term ‘citizen of the state (國民, gukmin),’ which referred to a concept of an individual who was essentially a subject of the Japanese empire and of its emperor. It had the same meaning as the term ‘imperial subject’ used to denote state citizens, who were obliged to offer absolute obedience and to endure unending sacrifice for the emperor. Clearly the term ‘citizens of the state’ as used in this period was a political one, coined by the Japanese imperial authorities as part of their oppressive rule of the Joseon people, and it succinctly symbolizes the reality of colonial Joseon. Meanwhile, however, those struggling for Joseon (Korean) liberation also used the very same term but with a different meaning：it referred to entities who would eventually obtain liberation and freedom for themselves. This appropriation and repurposing of a word which was central to the Japanese occupation of Joseon epitomized the Korean people’s resistance against their colonial oppressors. During the same period, there was also a concept ‘public citizen (公民, gongmin),’ which seems to have meant individuals who embodied the qualities of an ordinary citizen while also simultaneously the possessing the identity of an imperial subject. One might say the nature of such concept was half-citizen, half-subject. It was used to refer to individuals in situations where they were obligated to embrace colonial values and were not allowed to enjoy the right to constitutional self-determination. Thus, the ‘Gongmin’ concept was also inherently colonial. Another relevant term from the Joseon society of that time is ‘citizen (市民, shimin),’ which is seen in various phrases such as ‘citizen class,’ ‘citizen community,’ ‘citizenship,’ ‘citizen mass,’ etc., and even ‘house of citizen representatives.’ The term itself signified participating in something, with an implied alternative of something else. At the time, permanent civilian organizations were of course not permitted, so citizens had to oppose the imperial authorities through mass organization instead, and such activities thus gave rise to antiand semi-colonial aspirations, prompted by the situation of colonization. The terms ‘Gukmin (State citizen)’ and ‘Shimin (citizen)’ are the ones most commonly used today to refer to political entities, and even social activists often use these two terms indiscriminately. Indeed, no clear distinction is usually made nowadays between these two concepts, but during the Japanese occupation period these two words referred to two distinct identities. In the colonial environment, however, both of these concepts also had embedded connotations which encompassed colonial, anticolonial natures, all at the same time. One could not ask for any better examples of concepts which reflect the reality of that period.