春雨直播app

This book is a reconsideration of the history of 17th-century Confucian thought, which is situated in the midst of the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910). However, it begins its discussion of this topic by considering the historical role played by intellectuals in East Asia before and after the 20th century in order to clarify the context underpinning the beginning of the study of Joseon Confucian history. Since its inception at the start of the 20th century (during Korea’s colonial period), the study of Joseon history has been considered to be a “mission of the era” that sought to “excavate” the value of historical Joseon thought, in opposition to the “colonial historical view.”

As part of their historical mission, the colonial intellectuals, who had a heightened awareness of the desire to overcome negative perceptions of adherence to neo-Confucianism and the lack of originality brought about by the colonial historical view, “discovered” a trend of criticism against neo-Confucianism, based on the activities of Joseon Confucian scholarsin the 17th century; they positioned this as a step toward “modernity.”

This book argues that such stereotypes concerning Joseon Confucian history, which continue to this day, run contrary to historical facts. The historical recognition of intellectuals under colonial rule has been projected onto the historical study of Confucianism in the 17th century; thus, the sense of mission of 20th-century intellectuals, an idea not shared by Joseon-era Confucian scholars, has been commingled with interpretations of the 17th century. Therefore, this book extensively examines the works of both Japanese and Joseon Confucian scholars during the 17th century as well as scholarly literature from the 20th century onward, to explain the differences that existed between the 17th-century Japanese and Joseon Confucian worlds. As a result, the book confirms the reaction evoked by the scholarship of Japan, a 20th-century colonial power, in the Chinese and Korean intelligentsia and the remarkably different consciousness between 17th- and 20th-century intellectuals.

The challenges passed on from the colonial era in Korean academic history are numerous. Following the loss of sovereignty, many resources were expended in the effort to restore it, and all other problems became secondary. The task of achieving closure with respect to the study of colonial history still remains, and in such a context, the establishment of objectivity may be delayed. For example, Yi Woo Sung (1925–2017), a Korean scholar of “historicity,” explained that “[since the liberation, the study of colonial history has been positively transformed into the study of empirical history.] The basic policy of scholarship has been to treat people and history objectively, with a sense of citizenship … Objectivity without subjectivity—objectivity common to any age—is neutral objectivity. It is not related to the people’s sufferings” (Collected Works of Yi Woo Sung 1, Seoul: Changbi Publishers, 2010, p. 9).

The author believes that it is the task of 21st-century research historians to study the history of thought in Korea with the objective of clarifying what was truly sought by Joseon-era Confucian scholars and to move away from historical research infused with a contrarian mindset. Have we not yet entered an era in which the colonizers and colonized can join together to reflect on their history? The purpose of such scholarship is not to refute, rethink, or reconstruct the meaning of the colonial era, so as to pursue the issues and assign blame. Rather, the author believes that what this era requires of research historians is to engage with past works with impartiality and reserve, while empathizing with and respecting the ethos of a period when scholars endeavored to protect their heritage by studying its conflicts and struggles. These challenges may require a sense of mission as a 21st-century academic, but they can be resolved with a cheerful scholarly spirit, rather than one demanding confrontation and sacrifice.

 

(Written by: Kang Jieun / June 16, 2020)