[硏究論文]韓國과 日本: 近代 儒敎國家의 두 類型

Korean and Japan: Two Different Types of the Confucian State

Debates over "Asian Values", "Confucian Capitalism," and "Confucian Democracy" in recent years has brought much renewed interest in Confucianism world-wide. To date the debate has focused on delineating the differences between Confucianism, on the one hand, and modern western institutions and theories such as Capitalism, Democracy, and Liberalism, on the other. That is, much of the discussion has centered around the "East v. West" dichotomy. Consequently there has been little, if any, attempt to distinguish the many different versions of Confucianism as they exist in theory as well as in practice. Confucianism has undergone many fundamental changes and adaptations through its long history. Confucian philosophers and practitioners continuously reinterpreted and reshaped this ancient system of thought to re-order, restructure, renew, and revitalize the age in which they lived. As a result, there are many different theories, institutions and practices which are quite diverse, while still being called "Confucian." In this paper, I first argue that in terms of political theory there are two major strands of Confucianism. One is best represented by the centralizing, bureacratizing tendencies of major Chinese dynasties since the Han, and the other by the literati state of Chosun dynasty. In theory, the former was articulated by the likes of Tung Chung-shu of Han and Wang An-shi of Northern Sung. The latter was best articulated by the likes of Ch'eng I of Northern Sung and Chu Hsi of Southern Sung. These two different types of polity are both Confucian in nature but manifest themselves in strikingly different forms of theories and institutions. Secondly, I argue that the contemporary debate over Confucianism or "Asian Values" has failed to take account of this distinction and has taken the centralized-bureaucratic version of Confucian state to be the only one of its kind. This bias has been easy to maintain due to the fact that they have modern day representatives in contemporary Japan and Singapore. However, it is my contention that the other version of Confucianism, namely Chu Hsi's, is just as, if not more relevant for investigating modern implications of Confucianism. Thus, in order to further and deepen the debate over Confucianism, it is crucial to take into account Chu Hsi's version of it and its best representative, namely Chosun Dynasty of Korea. For those students interested in comparing modern day Korea and Japan, this will provide a new insight into the differences between these two seemingly similar modern industrialized nation states. It will also be of interest to those investigating the democratic implications of Confucianism for the modern world.