 |
| Courtesy of Jet Dela Cruz |
By David Tizzard
 |
Admittedly, it's hard to understand exactly what or where Confucianism is in 2023. Professor Chang Kyung-sup made a very convincing argument about the "yangbanization" of modern Korea when he suggested that, compared to the past, modern Korea is more Confucian than its traditional predecessors. Now, more and more Koreans use honorific language, lay out tables for chayre ceremonies, perform sebae, and pour alcohol with two hands. In Korea's not too distant caste-based slave society, such actions were more likely limited to those of the aristocracy: the yangban. Fast forward a few centuries and, just like long-padding and mokbang, everyone's doing it.
I asked Dr. Mark Peterson for his take on Confucianism during a recent podcast and he suggested that rather than the hierarchical and oppressive conduct it is associated with it today, that was never the case until the 17th century. Such views are a modern heteronormative misappropriation, if you will. It can also be understood by looking at four core values, listed in order of importance and unsatisfactorily translated from the original characters: benevolence, righteousness, etiquette, and wisdom.
Stepping back even further, we know that Confucianism became Korea's ruling state ideology when King Yi Seo-gye (otherwise known as Taejo) founded the Joseon Dynasty in 1392. In doing so he overturned the Goryeo Dynasty and rule of Buddhism. Though not always associated with Korea in the west's public consciousness, the writer Choe Nam-son has suggested that "Buddhism was seeded in India, grew in China, and bore its fruit in Korea." Buddhism will be explored another time more deeply but let us understand it now as a belief system focused on salvation. Answers for Buddhists were to be found, therefore, through introspection and meditation. Everything was subjective. The world was but an illusion which was to be penetrated through the mind, known here as il-che-yu-sim-jo.
Beautifully post-modern but for some this was considered nihilistic and not conducive to development. Why, after all, would people consider bettering themselves and the world around them if everything was but an illusion went the argument. Confucianism replaced this in Korea, but it was a very specific form of Confucianism. It was Neo-Confucianism and, moreover, that inspired and defined by Chu Hsi. Rather than penetrating the mind, it was about cultivating virtue and advocating correct behavior. Unique to the Korean Peninsula and less observed in China was a debate over the relationship between two core elements: principle (li) and material force (ki). Again, the translations are not entirely useful but it helps to think of principle as being the idea and theory behind something. It is non-physical. Conceptual. On the other hand, material force is that which is around us. The things that change, move, breathe, and exist in the world.
Take the example of a house. What comes first: the idea of building the house, the design, the intention, the plans, or the actual house itself? Is it born from principle or material force? Again, in the relationship between a husband and a wife (or a husband and a husband etc.), what comes first: the idea and values of the relationship or the actual relationship? A lot of early Chu Hsi inspired Confucianism in early Joseon valued the principle as the primary mover rather than the material force. Although both principle and material force were important, it was principle that was given primary status. It was said to stand above everything and affect everything.
However, there were great disagreements over the centuries. These were philosophical and political in nature and reflected the changing fortunes of the Joseon Dynasty. Kim Shi-sup countered the idea that principle preceded material force by referencing the yin and yang and the Great Ultimate. The yin and yang are inseparable and therefore one cannot come before the other, he said. Yi-I is known to all Koreans (his pen-name was Yulgok) and he also emphasized the dialectic between the two with a beautifully mind-bending conclusion: "Principle and material force are neither two things nor one. Because they are not one, they become two; because they are not two, they become one."
Yi Hwang (known as Toegye) is perhaps Korea's most important pre-modern philosopher. He also contributed greatly to the debate on principle and material force. In one passage, focusing on the importance of knowledge and conduct and how they are united in sensation yet reciprocated in rationality he says, "Without study, nothing can be learned and without effort, no conduct can be carried out in the moral sense. In conduct, if one does not have a sincere heart, one cannot know the truth, and even if one knew the truth, one could not put it into practice. Therefore, knowledge and conduct in the moral sense wait upon each other. They are always together."
In Confucianism, we humans occupy a rather privileged place in existence because we comprehend both principle and material force. We see the up and the down; the real and the transcendental. Unlike other creatures, we can access both realms. This idea of a privileged existence extended to the caste system as well. All people were considered equal in their Mencian unchanging virtuous human nature. However, their individual temperamental nature, their hearts and desires, created differences among people. The elite sage was one whose knowledge and conduct were in alignment with the principles. The middle-class man understood the principles and knew what he should do but often failed in his conduct because of his temperament being deficient in some way. The lower class man had no knowledge of the principles and thus his conduct was considered evil. All of which returns us to the oft-repeated Confucian observation, "Action without thinking is ignorant and thinking without action is dangerous."
This has been a very brief overview of Confucianism as it existed for centuries on the Korean Peninsula. It hasn't even touched on the famous "4-7" debate so obviously it only scratches the surface of a far more complex topic. However, it might give readers pause for thought next time they come across something analyzing "Parasite" or a New Jeans video from a "Confucian" perspective in the international press.
Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
