Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies

Beyond Confucianization
Boudewijn Walraven Leiden University

Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 7, No. 2

2007 Academy of East Asia Studies. pp.1-24

You may use content in the SJEAS back issues only for your personal, non-commercial use. Contents of each article do not represent opinions of SJEAS.

$ U N G K W I N .IOUI?NIL

( 3 2007 Academy olE35~ M a i l kudies. pp.1-24

or ~ T A O I A N STUOICL

Vnl.7, No.2.

Speical Issue

Beyond " Confucianization"

The four shon a y s in LhiS special miion are devoted to a discussior~on whelher Korm can
really be understood to be a couniry thoroughly confucianized as such. Being reckoned as the most Confucianized couaay even among h e countries in East k i a , Korea as an academic topic have always been related to Confucianism; while. onc rhc other hand. only about 2% o l the Korean poplacion still chooses Confucianism a s irs prlmary af6liarion. At the 2007 biennial conference of Lhe Association for Korean Studics held in France, a group of scholars from Korea, Europe and h e US debated the limits ol h e standard view that after the m i t i o n from K.orya LO Chosirn Korea was , d u a l l y "Confucianized". Thc topic is no1 only relevant to the intellectual and social history of C h o s ~but , ~ also important for an undesmding or h e role of Confucianism and dcbtes about this in modem Korea. Here the essence of their efforts to shcd lights on nonConfucian side of C h d n and modem Korea is displayed. Authors contributed to this secrion with an inuoduction by Boudewijn Walraven include: Martina Deuchler. Don Baker. Mmn Okpyo, and Kim Daeyeol. Keywords: Coduciaoiza~ion, pauihealir).,shamanic rituals, Korean family, Koran hoism.

Boudewijn Walravcn Leidm University

There will scarcely be a lopic that has such a boundless capacity to coniuse as Confucianism. Is it a philosophy, a political ideology or a religion? M o d m Conlucia~lists lhernselves have given very different a n w m s to this queslion, distancing themselves from religion because of its irrational comola~ions or insisting on Confucianism's religious naturc w i ~ h o u whch ~ it cannot represent absolute truth.' To 19'"century Korean reformers and foreign residents Confucianism embodied everything tllat stood in rhc way 01 progress. The followers of' CoduciuslKongja $1 i-1and Mencius[Maenda ZT1 were compared to little frogs in a pond endlessly croaking maengkkong mamgkkong dT$js, incapable of accomplishing anyttung of practical value. By the end of the 20Ih century, in contrast, Confucianism was often invoked as the rooc of the rapid economic development of Korea and other Asian Tigers. Yet, in Korea less complimentary views of Confucianism are car from extinct, as wimessed by the title of a 1999 bestseller: Kongia-ga chugSya narcl-ga sanda %2\7\ Solo) w 7 F QQ [Confuciusmust die to save the nation]. One should note h e implicit assumption that Confucianism is still a force to be reckoned with, although only about 2% of the Korean population stilt chooses Confucianism as its primary affiliation.

Part of the confusion arises from the very diverse ways the appellation Confucianism has been used and the various functions it has fulfilled. In the Chosbn period, it was what Peter Berger has called the "sacred canopy" of society, which was supported by the "plausibilitystructure" created by the Choshn state.' When in 1894 the state examinations h a t forced anyone with arnbinon to study the Confucian classics were abolished and soon after the Chosbn state disappeared altogelher, "Confucianism" became son~ething very different and mainly survived as a much more diffuse ennty a conglomerate of values that still m y have the power to inspire (and perhaps to serve as the foundation of "Asian values") bur can be held, in whole or in part, by persons who simultaneously subscribe to alternative creeds such as Christianity Such distinctions, however, are only useful up to a point and do nor release us from the obligation co ask more probing questions. Describing Confucianism as Chosh's sacred canopy, for instance, may encourage us to see it in terms that too much derive from concepts more proper to monotheistic religons, assigning it an excessively monolithic character. To which extent was adherence to Conhcianism in the Choan period exclusive? At the 2007 biennial conference of the Association for Korean Studies held in France, a group of scholars Gorn Korea, Europe and the US debated the limits of the standard view that after the transition from KO@ W M to Chosbn Korea was gradually "Confucianized". Among them was Martina Deuchler, who with her classic The Confician Ti-aqfonnaliono f Korea gave delluled content to t h idea, but now is working on another book on Korean Confucianism in which she will ask new questions and add nuance to her earlier views. The editors of the Sunglzyun Journal ojEast Asian Studies felt that the brief position papers written to kick off the discussion would be of interest to many and therefore have decided to publish the more general papers presented in France in this issue of theJou~nal.'The topic is not only relevant to the intellectual and social history of Chos6n, but also important for an understandmg of the role of Confucianism and debates about this in modem Korea (which in turn to a certain extent determine h e way we look at Chos6n Confucianimi). For scholars from outside Korean Studies the papers may help to clanfy the particular ways in which Confucianism and Confucianization in Korea diverged from the trajectories seen in Cllina,Japan and Vietnam and be a stimulus to view Confucianism in hose countries in comparative perspective. Obviously, not all scholars who took part in the debate were of exactly the same opinion in all respects. There was some disagreement, for instance. whether the popularization or even vulgariiation of Confucianism, of which there is ample

1 CC. W.J. h o t .

"Should Confucianism be Studied as a Religions Tradition?",in Brcuker 2007.

Thc papers are presenied here in lheir original fonn, as relali\dy brief statemenrs intended to s t m a discussion, not a s lull tmlmcnts of the lopics lhey deal with. -' For some detailed examples o l the way in which Buddhists co~rlpe~ed with Confucianism making use of Confucian ~erminolopy, see in an carlicr issue of this journal, Younghcc Lcc 2001.

Speical Issue

evidence from Lau ChosZln, should count as true "Cotlfucianiza~ion".Such disagreements are overcome, however, in a skared tendency to go beyond Confucianism and Confucianization as refied concepts and look for Bourdieu's "logic of practice." 11 is clillicul~ LO deny that in the Chosbn period Coducianism became a dominant discourse, which largely dictated the terms in which debates were conducted,' but i t was not a csst-iron mould that shaped everything. In practice, there was leeway for people to pursue t l ~ & social, political and spiritual ends by making saategical choices. These were olien made in confoimity w i h Confucian orthodoxy, but alsc frequently drew on other traditions that were more congruent with their dispositions and purposes, or subverted Confucian orthodoxy by a particular selecnve interpretation of its tuIes.The latter is, I think, what we see in at least some o l the cases of the "licentious rituals" discussed by Donald Baker. Addressed to spirits that legitimately might be worshipped by Confucians, albeit perfonned by persons who did not possess the qualifications to do so, these were conducted not in ounight defiance of Confucianism, bur as a form of "poaching", challenging or ignoring social privileges. Ironically such ritual practices may be interpreted either as an instance of Confucianization (man$ested in the desire of the lower orders to appropriate rituals that properly should be conducted by their Confucian superiors) or as an index of the incompleteness of Confucianization (because of the refusal to abide with strict Confucian rules). As a blanket term "Confucianization," although in certain ways a useful concept, is therefore an abstraction i h a ~ insufficiently reflects an ever-shifting, kaleidoscopic realiv. increased attention is required to what is hidden behind the siulple labcl of "Confucianization".

Is "Confucianization of Korea" a vahd concept of

analysis?
Martina Deuchler SOAS,University of London
have been worlung on h e rela~ionsliip between Confucian, rhought and ritual pracrice and Korean society T have often come r.o doubt the validity of the claim tlmt Korean society was a thoroughly Confucianized society. No one, of course, would dispute that Confucianism had an enormous impact on Korean thought and society. However, this claim has created what Foucault called a " m t h regimeu--something that tends to become accepted as self-evident "object of knowledge." Warning against such constructs, he encouraged researchers to be more self-critical in how they conceptualize their research topics. Taking chis warning to heart, I have been trying to move away from focusing on how Confucian values and norms were incorporated into the C h o a n

During ihe long years that T

legal corpus. Instwd 01emplmizing ideolom 1 have been s~udying Lhe "logic of practice." That is, how and for what ends did the Chosbn Koreans use Confucianism? Was, for example, the lineage S~WXI, which emerged in the htter half of Chosiin, one of the straceges Korean elite descent groups devised LO come to t e r m wilh and survive under h e changing social, political, and economic circumstances c ~ hl e time? Were Confucian principles 01kin organization adopted, for instance, to comba~ larid shortage? Was lineage: organization also uscd to strenglhen the elites' autlionty vi-wi-visLhe slate? The big question then seems to be: Why was rhe C o d u c i a patrilineal ideology ever adopled in a Korcan socioreligious environment t h a ~ w a s basically advmse. to purely agnatic and lineal n my recent research I have locused on the history of what T organiza~ion? L loosely n U the Korean "descent group"lssijoh E&1Frcm late KO+ to law Chosbn. Desccnt groups were not only t h e lunclamcntal Komn kin organization since lime immemorial; lhey also dorninared the alloca~ionol he political and economic resources. An assessment of the changes they experienced after the KoryiKhos6n transilion Lor w h c h Confucianism is generally believecl to have furnished the principal i m p e t u s is thus central to my research. To whai cxccnt was che incligcnoiis descent group, which was built on a bilateral societal code and thus clearly resisted an easy incorporation 01Conlucian lineal principles, subjected to structural change? I-Iow was such change implemented? And lor w h a ~ rcasons? Wkat was the outcome of the imposition of a "vertical*Confucian strucmre on h e 'horizontal" Kor* mchtion? The outcome producecl, as I shall show, some clucial compromises that made the mature Korean lineage system a much more complex consauct than simple pacrilinedity would suggest It is, of course, unproductive to cry to "measure" Korea's degree of Confucianization against an "ideal" Confucian society because even the Chinese Classics do not provide a umform picture of such an ideal society Yet, this much is clear: Conlucian social theory does propagate a suicdy panilineal system, that is, descent is reckoned through the male line; power is dispensed herarchically from elder t o younger, male to female; and the pamliineaUy smctured group k definite boundaries, i t . , differennates between agnates and non-agates. The members of such a group derive their membership from a common apical ancestor and it is worship to common ancestors that structures agnates along main and collateral lines and binds them into a group, commonly called a Lineage. It is the most senior member of the main descent h e , recognized as the primogeniture heir, who acts as the group's principal officiant in ancestral iires. Did, [hen, the adoption of the Confucian-style patrilineal system, in particular of primogeniture, account for change in social institutions that took place after 1392? Where then were the points of intersection of "Korean" and "Confucian"? That is, where were the points of densest interaction-i.e., poincs of accommodation, and where were the poincs of least interaction-i.e.: points of contestation and resistance? To give an example: Some ten years ago, at the AKSE Conference in Stockholm, Paek Sngjong talked about changes in the C h o d n inheritance system and criticized earlier work (my own included) for assuming that the rise of

Speical Issue

primogeniture -the preference of the eldest primary son as the principal heuwas a direct consequence of the country's Confudanization Why, he asked, did, under simiir ideological conditions, primogeniture not aIso emerge in China? He then showed that w e n in Korea primogeniture was in fact only ~arely fully observed, and that, instead, younger sons and even secondary sons[%l [$!Z] often remained beneficiaries of inheritance divisions. In short, Paek thought that this was clear evidence that changes in the inheritance system, in particular the discrimination of secondary offspring, had no connection to Neo-Confucian though^ Although Pael's observations were valid, he, too, &d not come up with suggetions of what reasons, other than ideological ones, could account for such variation. He postulated, however, that microhistory might be a useful research tool for refining our understanding of the inheritance system. The inheritance system-the way the patrimony was shared out t o whom and in what propotiom-can indeed be used as a testing ground for examining the gradual transformation of the Korean descent group, but is it a good testing ground? I also have found signacant variations. In time, the primogenimre heirs did tend to receive larger shares rhan their younger siblings, and at times even exclusive shares. Yet, 1also found cases that as late as the eighteenth century even daughters continued to receive, albeit only token, shares. In short, the inheritance system may indeed serve only in a limited sense as an inQcator of changing attitudes attributable to Confucian practice. After aU, the patrimony is an entity that is divisible-and all those, even daughters, who think they have a legitimate clam to a share, may want to receive it, in debnce of any prescriptions. In sum, focusing on the inheritance system may thus not be the best way to resolve whether or not the eventual irnplan&tion of primogeniture was the result of Confucianization. I suggest taking ancestor worship as an alternative approach. As I have argued before, Confucian ancestor worship focused on a common third- or fourthgeneration ancestor presupposes the formation of an agnatic group of worshippers with a collateral span of third cousins. In such a narrowly deFined group, which orders agnatic kin along smct principles of seniorit): collateralit>:and generational divisions, only one member,namely the most senior member of che main descent Line, i.e., the primogeniture heir, could function as chief officiant. Being chief oficiant was like being king-both are indivisible ofices. A l l authority and, in the latter part of Chosbn, also considerable wealth, was concentrated on this one man called chongson $f$(meaning "ritual heir"). Chongson is a genealogically ascribed position and thus excludes younger brothers, not to speak of sisters. The site where the worshipping group gathered was the ancestral shrinelsadong mg] in which the ancestral tablets of the paniIineal antecedents were installed, and the ritual expenses were defrayed by assets (land and slaves) the ritual heir received as an extra share of the pau-imony It seems to have been in h e logic of the system that the ritual heir eventually became the sole heir of the patrimony for the nonConfucian reason rhat land became scarce in late Chos6n. In other words, ritual reasons could be put forward to prevent the relentless division of the patrimony Even so, as noted above, there was no uniformity in pracace. In short, ttus kind ol worshipping group focused on the ancestral shnne formed what 1 call a "ritual
-

Speical luue

lineage." It was similar to the one describecl in such ritual handbooks as Zhu Xi's Domestic R i t a urJiali Lineage sm~cnlre in Korea was, however, much more complex. What 1 call

m.

"ritual Lineage" does not yield the complete picture of how the Chosivn Koreans came to organize themselves ritually. There were also groups of agnatcs who worshipped at graves of ancestors more remote than hose worshipped in the domestic s h e . Such a group also formed a h n d of lineage, but it was inclusive. its membership included all of a focal ancestor's direct descendants, often even non-agnatic (i.e., daughters') descendants, and its ri~ualactivities were sustained by corporately held land. The chongson shared h e ritual functions with the group's elders, and wen his brothers and cousins also actively participated in the rites. In short, this worshipping group was much broader than the ritual lineage and represenled what Myron Cohen calls ~ht. "associational" aspects o l kinship. It embodies, I argue, a compromise formula that retained characteristics of the indigenous Korean dfscent group. . In conclusion, then, Korea's Confucianizarion was a very complex procss. Even though Confucian ritual prscriptions called for reformatory action, not all motiva~ionfor change in Chos6n Korea should simply be attributed to Confucianism. Rather, what we should focus on is the question: w h a ~ did the Chosdn Koreans think h e y were doing when they irivoked Confucian precepts as incenuves for action.

Rituals and Resistance in Chos6n Korea.

Don Baker
University o j B ~ i t i s h Columbia
"A sacnfice which it i s nor proper 10 o h . and yet which is offered. is called a licentious s a d ~ c e A . licemiow sacnfice brings no blessi~~g."~

Chosbn Korea is often described as a completely Confucian society, some even going so far as to say that in its last nvo centuries it grew to be even more orthodox Confucian than China was at that tune. Therr are a couple of problems with such a sweeping generalization. First of all, it ignores the wide range of ritual, plulosopllical, religious, political, and social thought and behavior that, at one time or anolher, have been described with the amorphous umbrella term "Confucian." When a label has been applied so broadly and widely it js dilXcul~to determine

Ll

Chi: Book One. part Two,Ill. t: Legge. mns.1976:116..

whether a specific phenomenon it is applied to is orthodox or heterodox. Second, such a blanket assertion ignores the wide range of beliefs, values, and beluvior i n Chosbn Korea, much of which cannot fit under even the broadest definition of "Confucian." I t is this second Fl aw in the "Conlucian Chodn" notion that I wish to address i n this short paper by pointing out instances of resistance by Koreans to Confucianiza~ion over the course of the entire Chosbn dynasty. What sort of resistance did Koreans tnount LO Confucianization? If Confucianization is defined as the drive to re-structure Korean society along patrilineal and occupationally-defined hierarchical Lines, in accordance with Confucian criteria, and to make it conform to the injunction of Confucius to respect spirits but keep them at a &stance: then we can interpret the performance of what the Confucian government called "amsa," gm, "licenlious rituals," as resistance to the Confucianization prqjecL ol' the C:ho*n dynasty. A t least that is the way Confucian scholars and officials during the C h o a n dynasty appear to haw uriderstood the activity the.y labeled "iimsa." The term 'Yimsa" was applied to a wide range of activity, ranging from shaman and other Iolk rituals to some Buddhist and Daoist rituals. A public ritual pcrlormancr (private or family rituals such as hosu 3 q e were not much of a concern to the government) would be labeled %ma" if it was performed without official authorization, if it involved interaction with a supernaturaI personality who did not meet government approval, If the person interacting wit.h that spirit was not of the appropriate s o c d rink to do so, and if it was performed wirhou~tht decorum Confucians thought was appropriate. These ddferent reasons for labeling a ritual a "licentious ritual" have at least one thing in common: the); all represent a refusal to accept the narrow definition o T acceptable ritual behavior the Confucian government of Chosan Korea tried to impose.. In other words, they represent resistance through ritual to the attemp by ~ h government c to exercise ritual hegemony over all Levels of society. Since ritual hegemony is an essential elemen1 of Confucian statecraft, "licentious rituals" may therefore be reasonably interpreted as resistance to the Coilfuciatlizationol Korea. "Licentious riruals" remained a problem over the entire five centuries or h e Chosbn dynasty; Government officials were never able to totally supprt~s them. In fact, near the end of that dynasty, new l o m s of "licentious rituals," practiced by Catholics and followers of Tonghak Rq:spread across the peninsula. Resistance tn Confucianism was n we.r totally etirninatecl. The Confucian character of he concept of "licentious rituals" is clear noL only in its applicalion in Korea but also in its Chinese roots. Several Lines from the

;Dcspirc their importance as a ~nan~lcsva~iun of resistance co Confucianization. little wcrc dcfincd by Confucian scholars aicl ollickils. scholarly attention has been yaid to how %~nsc~'' Thc only recent articlc I could find t h a ~ addresses that suhjrcr IS Ch'oe Chor~gsvng,2006. Y i Mnghwa(1977) has a lisc olcondemnations ofitmsn on pp. 33-39, However, Yi does nor analyze the use of that tern. Several decades ago Han U S n ( J 9 7 6 ) analyzed [he debale in ihe early years of the Chosiin dynasty over which rituals to promote and which LO condemn. His article has not received he attention it desen~cs.

Confucian Classics were used i n arguing chat certain rituals should be deemed impropu. One 011-cited line is from the AIU~ECLE: "10 S ~ ~ toCspilirs C that are not onc's own is to be presurnpt~ous."~ T ~ was E coupled with a clause in the sooh of Rites, "The Son of Heaven sacrifices lo heaven and arch, the feudal lords sacrifice to the gads of the crops and famous mountains and great rivcrs in their tenitory, great ollicers sacrifice to the Five Deities, ofiicers and the common pmple sacdice to their ances~ors"" LO argue that a proper social hierarchy lmd to be main taind in ritual behavior, and thar hose who interacted with supernatural beings above their station w m engaging in "licentious rituals." Another passage From rhat same page in the Book oJRites was used to support the argument for ritual hegemony of the state: "There should be no presuming to resume any sacrifice which has been abolished (by proper authority), nor to abolish any which has been so establi~hed.~'~ This i s a classic statement of ritual hegemony, giving the state both the authority to determine which rituals m u s t be performed. and which must not be performed. This scaternent combines with the statements in the preceding paragraph to add a third dimension to ritual hegemony. The state also claimed the riglx to determine who could officiate at ricuals, malung some rituals legtimate when performed by some but "licentiousn when performed by others. The Book of Rires also suggested how the stale's ritual hegemony was to be enforced: "Using licentious music, strange garments, wonderful contrivances and cxrraordinary implements. thus raising doubts among the multitudes; all those who used or formed such dungs were put to death ...All ~hosc who gave false reports about (appearances of) spirits... were put to death."" The Ming Law Cocltss, which were adopwd by the Chos6n dynasty and used as i~ own law code, makes explicit that the ritual hegemony of the state could be enlorced with capital pnislirnen~. The sccnon niost nfcen used in punishing those who engaged in "licentious rituals" was the section "prohibiting the depraved pracriccs of shamans and olhfr specialists in t.hesupcrnatural." That section reads as follows:
Genwrlly speaking, sh;lmans arid vther spccidurs in the supernatural pretend c o be able to summon evil spirits. They creale amulets, and d ~ c y .say they are ablc ro give water magical power with their incantadons. They c h a n d spirits duough spirit-writing.... Some o r Lbcm even go SO far as to style themselves thc incamation of thc Maitwya Buddha. . . such A praclices c r a ~diso~des . by cle.vviaung lrom the correct path. Some of rhtm have esotelic iniges a m 1 sra~ues. Some of them meet ro burn incense cogether or stay up all-night together, no[ returning home until dawn brealcs. There are some who pretend to be engaged in good works only in order to seduce the masses.Those who are the leaders of

8 h n l e c ~ s : 2 . 2 $Shgerland : trans.

9L i Chi:Book One,part Two,111, t;L e g e ,

2003:16. xans.1976:116. lo Li Chi:Book One. par1 TSQ. Ill, 4; Legge. trans.1976:116. 1 : L 1 Chi:Vol.l. Book Three. +,16:Legge,uans.1976:237-8.

Speical h

such gro~ipsshould be mangled. Their followers should be beaten 100 times and hen banished 3;000 li 2 away."

There are some features of the Confucian dehirion of "licentious rituals" that we should pay special attention to. First of all, as it was applied in Korea, it was not limited to the specific behaviors listed in the law code. Instead, it was broadly applied to any ritual behavior that threatened the Confucian social hierarchy, including the patriarchy, or challenged the ritual hegemony of the Confucian state, or the ideological dominance of Confucianism. Secondly, in contrast to how improper ritual has usually been defined in the Abrahamic n-ahtiom, it is more often not "who is worshpped'' but "how they are worshipped" and "who worships them" that usually determines if a r i m 1is "licentious" or not1' The Sillok E& suggests that mlatively early in the dynasty a distinction benveen acceptable and unacceptable rituals was based on thaological grounds. Ln 1441, ir was stated ac court that "Generally speaking, rituals to the gods of heaven, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, mountains and rivers, grain, the royal ancestors, great sages from the past, or great teachers are acceptable rituals. The rituals of Buddhism, Daoism, and Shamanism ;Ire licentious."'.' However, this is clearly not how the condemnatory labeI of 11wn was actually applied. First of all, not all Buddhist, Daoist, and Shaman rituals were illicit. There was an official Daoist temple in Seoul until near the end of the 16*i century'j Local government offices, all during the dynasty, employed ~hamans.'~And, though monks were barred from entering the capital, under King Sejo there was an oDicial Buddhist sutra publishing office and, after the Japanese invasion of the 15905, the government erected temples in fortresses around Seoul to house warrior-monks. At times, Confucian scholar-officials showed that they were aware of this inconsistency. For esample, in 1456, an official pointed out to King Sejo h a t one of the problems the government was having in stamping out limsa is that the govemment legitimized shamans by taxing them as though theirs is a legitimate profession, and it even employed shamans in its medical system. The king responded, however, that such shaman rituals were so popular that there is really not much the government could do to eradicate them, especially among the commoner classes. Even among the upper class, he noted, if the women were

Tne Mydrpyul cl1iltkae:Sechon 1. Article 181 (p.294). Han U ~ n ( 1 9 7 6 ) shows thnt there were three different grounds for declaring a ritual a -licentiousn or illegitimate ritual: 1) i1 it was performed by someone who did not have the proper status to perform i t or wns a ri~ualthat was he prerogative of the state but was perlormed by unauthorized individuals (lor txample, riluals to mountain and river gods performed by shamans without permission), 2) it was 3 ritual townrd a spirit which did not exkr. was not worthy of ritual worship, or had no power to respond to those rituals and therefore the ritual m s a waste of time and resources. or 3) it was a ritual performed in an Improper fashion, such as a shaman performing a funeral lor a deceased person of status. 1' Sejong sillok 94:23.12(sinch'uk) Yi Chongtin 1988:87-190. 16 For a masterful study of government-sponsoredshaman rinrals. see Ch'oe Chonpng 2002.
12

13

Speical 'Issric

restrained, then visiting a shaman would not do them any h a m . If they were not restrained, then uying LO outlaw frequenting shamans will noc stop them.IT Evidence thac it was actually who performed a rimal, and whether they were authorized to do so, that actually determined where a ritual was "Licentious" or not can be Eound at various places in court records. For example, in 1413, the king was told a shaman had sacrificed to "Majo" %@, the spirit of the first human being to ride a horse. Such a shaman-led ri~ualto Majo was declared an "~msu." There was an official major shnne near the Seoul ciry wall, so the problem was not the god who w x worshipped but who lcd rha~ 1-i~ual. 'The lung ordered d m an oiliclal h m the Royal Sublei Administranan pcrrkmn ha^ r i ~ ~instmd.'" ~al A k w yfars la~er, in 1-124, an official co~nplainedto IZing Sejong chat conllnoners were wotshipping rivrr and mountain go&, though ollickting at such ritlrals was supposecl to be reserved for government officials.He complained that this was a violation of "mydngbirn" +',5?, the ddferentiation of privileges and obligations according to social status. O h r r ofhckls pointed O U L [ha[ commoners had been worshipping such spirits for centuries and rherefore i t would be impossible to coinpletrly stop h e m horn doing so. Instead, hey proposed that the government establish irs oum slvines to such local deities and have ollicials lrdd the rituals at hose shnns to ensure that they were both decorous and perfomed by a celebrant of appropriate s ~ u s in , the hope tha~ such official riluals woulcl replace folk rit~a1.s.'~ Obviously it was nor which god was wol-jhippcd but hy whom he or she was WOI-shpped h a t determined whether a ritual was legitimate or not. At times the t m ilrnsa was applied to activities that were seen LO be as much licentious as they were illegitimate, jus~ifyingthe standard translacion of " i r m " as licentious ritual. Over several decades from the end of the 15" century into the 16Ih century, there were frequent reporu to the court about men and women going to a mountain near Naju to perform "ilma" together. In 1478, for example, the king was told that men and women were mingling together openly on that mountain and worshipping the mountain god out of the ignorant belief that, if they railed co offer such worship, they would fall ill over the next year. He adds, "Those ignorant peasants won't stop acting like this unless we get d l y strict about enforcing the law against such practices.'!"' The umbrage voiced by the lung and his oEficials at such rituals appears to be aimed as much against the way the riads were performed, with men and women consorring together openly, as it was against the iituals themselves. d did not put a scop to such Righteous anger over improper c h ~ betlavior bcbvior. "Licentious rituals" of all sorrs continued t.0 be a prublem lor rhe Confucian s m e and i~ oKicids for cecntmics after this. Yr Sug\-vang(l563-1628)
-

17 St90

silloh -1:2.i(f1lbne)

l a T'iitjo~tgsiflok

26:13.I l(1tybngjin). I ' o r more on worship or klnjo, scc Iirn C l f ~ n g o

2002198-210.
' 0

Sejong silloh 23:6,2(chungst1)as c i i ~ in l Ch-oc Chongsong 2006:19. Simgjung sillol: 6:9.10(sinchJl~ k)

Speical Issue

nored that in his time, early in the 17'h century, "we need to beware of shamans. If you open your door to them and let them into your courtyard, you wiU soon find yourself bewitched by them, They should be completely banned. All these shamans care about is gettig their hands on your possessio=.....The problem is h i t solnedmes they say things that are true, as though they can read our minds. Even among well-educated scholars, there are few who can escape being fooled by them."" Though limsa embraced much more than shaman rituals, K'S focus on shamans was nor unusual, since shamans were seen as posing a major threat to the financial stability and moral respectability of Korean households, However, an every more serious threat came from the belief in the power of gods of local shrine, a belief char was often promoted by shamans. In 1566, for example, the Royal Secretariac[Sfingjbngw6n ziijSkF%] reported that, in the Kaesbng Mhl area, many families have lost everything they had because they had used up too much of their financial resources at the shrines of local gods. (Such shrines were labeled ''lima," uich [he "sa" in this case being the character for shrine rather than rhe character for ritual. Shrines were given that label if they were the frequent site 01 illict rituals and were not also used for legitimate rituals)" A couple of centuries later, Tasan Chbng Yagyong Zllr TSa(1762-1836) showed in his advice lor district magistrates, his Mongmin simsa%&C~S, that "iimsa,"both "Licentious rituak" and "licentious shrines" were still a problem. In his chapter on "Preventing trouble" [chehae I;$%], he wrote "Deal with licentious rituals in accordance with the provisions of the Ming l a w Codes." He then says that if you follow the Ming regularion to execute leaders of groups responsible for such rituals and punish their followers wirh 100 strokes, then no one d l disobey that law He added "shamans, monks claiming supernarural powers, and others like [hem, since they delude he people in order to take their possessions from them, must face the Full weight of the law. They should be strangled. Show them no mercy! Then you will have no more trouble from such nonsense."" In another section of the M o n p i n simsC, Tasan was a little less draconian in Tasan dealing with illicit rituals and shrines. In the section on "Ritual"1chesa Mi?], wrote, "Lf you are assigned to a district that has a long tradition of performing an illicit ritual, you should focus on educating chose living there so that they themselves will bring it to an end." In the meantime, he went on to say, if you know for sure h t a local ritual is an illicit ritual, then you should do as Yulgok did and fuse to take part in it or contribute anything to it!' However, Tasan then went on to provide examples of effective acnon that could be taken against illicit rituals and the shrines at which they are performed. Drawing on both Chinese and Kotean history, he cites 16 cases of local government

Spcical Issue

oEFicials successfully putting an end to n tradition of a local licentious ritual by tearing down the shrine, throwing the image of the god into the river, or, in one case, replacing a shrine to a disreputable spirit with one to admirable figures born that district's past." Tasan made those suggestions early in the century, at a time when new "licentiou rituals" had appeared in Korea. He was well aware of those new rituals. H i s own cousin, Yun Chich'ung ?%,@.(1759-91), had been executed for modiymg Conhcian mourning rituals to avoid violating Catholic regulations against what Catholics considered to be "ilmsa."The lad charge agai~isc h n was two-fold: he had violated the hw mandarjng the erection ol'spiric rablecs, and h h a a l d violated the same clause in h e Ming code that had hem used [or centuries against those who engaged in and-Confucian "ttmsa."" A sitnilar charge of umsa was u 4 to j u d y Lhe execution of Chbe Sihy6ng W43,f i e *Lolbnghakpatriarch, in 1898." New illicit rituals were not the only 'licentious rituals" h a t govermnenL in the B'h century of the dynasty. In 1893, a fonne~ officials were worried abou~ official in the Office of the Censor-General memorialized the h o n c about dl sorw of rituals that hr thought should be suppressecl. Wliat's significant. here is that what bother hn Hyoje H i R was not the go& who were being worshipped or who was worshipping hem as much as it was why they were being worshipped. For example, he complained that the slnines erected in Seoul to Gwanyu ldtl 77, at h e end of the Hideyoshi invasions were being laken over by shamans who, instead of sjmply expressing the gratitude of the Korean peoplr lor he help Gwanyu gave at the time of the war against Japan, were asking the spirit in that shrine for special favours. To make matters worse, he pointed out, an impudent spirit had appeared in that shrine and claimed to be in charge there. Pwencing herself as the daughter of a sage king from the ancient past, l e spirit was leading not only the masses astray but had even won the favour of top of officials and. what really upset An, the king hrnself. An goes on to complain that noise horn shaman and Buddhists rituals can be heard on the streers of the capital every day and that the royal purse is being misused to pay for purification rituals within the palace walk chat look just like Buddhst rituals. This is setting a bad example for the common people, who are also engaging in more and more such licentious ritual behaviour. "Why is this happening? It's all due to the fact rhat rituals are being used LO ask for hvours rather than to show respect" The former censor concludes that the reason why people are engaging in iimsu in the hope rhat those rituals w i l l bring them some personal benefit i s tha~ h e lung hinself, even though he is otherwise a wise king, is not aware of the da~iger such ritual brhaviour

Mongmin si1nsb:7Rla-211,
26 Cho~tgjo sillok:lj.ll.8; cited in Ch'oe Kibok

''Kojong Tachwungie s01011:37; 35.7.1 8.

198511L

a Kojor~g Tuhww~@sillolr:30.30.8(1:)~~ngo].

Spcical lssuc

11 is important to note here thal not all unofficial ritual behaviour was condemned as "licentious ritual." There was much private ritual behaviou~tlut was not subjec~ LO suppression by government officials. 'lhe govrmment ignored the vast majority of shaman rituals, since h y were private and intended only for a small circle of family members and neigl~l-rours (though they would attract attentioll if they involved h e families of governnlcnt officials or royal relatives). Moreover, Buddlust monks were free to yedorm ~ h r i r rituals in their temples. Also. Buddhist lay people were allowed LO meet in small groups to read h e sutrag. chant t h e Buddha's name, or ask for the aid of the Big Dipper Deity or the Bodhisattva Chijang &$&.29 Nevertheless, unsanctioned rituals in public spaces involving large numbers of participants and observers, especially rituals for entire communities and rituals that involved large numbers of men and women trawlling to the ritual site, risked government action against them. Licentious rim& were a political problem rather than a theological issue. The government was less concerned about what its subjects believed than in whac they did, especially if they acted in large enough numbers to potentially threaten social order. A close study of the application of uthe condemnatory label amsa shows that it was used against group action [hat violated "myhgbun," the hierarchical order of privileges and obligations. The government exercised ritual hegemony, allowing m e ritual behaviour and prohibiting other rituals, in order to maintain state control of the public sphere. C k d y 'licentious ritual" remaincd a pruhlem, at least in some minds, river the course of the entire Chosbn dynasty If we can interpret such defiance of the ritual hegcmony of t h e Confucian state as a manifestation of resistance to h e governing ideology of that state, in other words. of defiance of and resistance to Cohcianization, then il is clear that, though Conti~cknism managed to win lor itsell the top spot on the idcologcal ladder during d~at more than five-cenrq long dynasty, its victory was never a total victory Non-Confucian religous beliefs and pmctices conrinuecl to sunrive, and even tlu-ivc, despilt. Confucian opposi~on and suppr&on. Though Confucianism was able to dominate the public sphere, ir was never able to completely monopolize it. Korean's prdhnlucian spiritudiry co~tld not be completely eliminated fi-om the public sphere Confucianism tried LO claim as its own.

'9 Boudeuijn Widraven, '.Eighteen-Century Buddhis~ Betiek and Practices in Y6mbul pogwbnmun." presented at the 30qh annual conference of the Associarion for Korean Studies in Europe; Han Sanggil 2006.

Relevance of Confucianism in Present-day Korea: Reconsidering the Confucian Character o f the Korean Family and Gender
Moon Okpyo
Academy o f Korean Studies

It is a formidable task to comment upon thc relevance of Confucianism in presentday Korea. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to decide what exactly

Confucian elements arc. instead of being separately institutionalized, what may be unders~oodas Confucian elements is so deeply penneated and diffused in the patterns of human relationships, family and kinship, ritual life, ethics and cosn~ologm of h e Korean people tlmt it is not s o easy to delineate their boundaries. Another danger lies in the fact that it is quite possible to interprel he same situation in quite an opposite way, depending on the comrncntatofs perspective and stancc, LC.,both as a continuation of past trahtion and as a break-away horn it. With these r e s m t i o n s in mind, 1 will attempt in this short presentation to confine myself to some feature of contemporary pracLices of Korean family and gender rclalions, and to consider their implications in relation to the main theme of his panel, that is, to what extcnt may we understand conLemporary Korean socieq as "Conlucian." Lineage Ideology: It is generally believed that the Korean family and kinship were transformed from a bilateral orientation of the KO* period to a patrilineal lineage society as a result of the Confucianisation process of the Chos6n period. While it may be the historian's job to show us exactly what proportion of the total population were able to actually forn~ patrilineal lineages during the Chosbn period, it seems that, at least by the beginning of the 20h century, patrilineal lineages had come to be accepted as an ideal norm not only among the elites but also among the commoners. One indicator may be found in the practice of ancestral rituals that may be considered as the key institution for the development and maintenance of patrilineal lineages. Despite the official attempt to limit the range of ancestral ceremonies by status distinction, by the beginning of the 20& century, an increasingly wider population came to practice them for up to four ascending generations in the paternal Line. This is of course not to deny the continuing importance of other nonConfucian elements in Korean ritual life. The introduction of Christianity in the lace lqhcentury began to challenge Confucian ritual practices. Also, the numerous records of surveillance and oppression of sharnanic practices during the Japanese colonial period indicate their continuing significan~e.'~ Similarly, the spread of
> W h i l e [he mast common understanding of rhe c o e ~ i s ~ e n c o l c Confucianism and genderedncss, i . ~ .male . Conhcian rites existing side by side wicitli kinale Shamanism in Korea 1s ~ t s Shamat~ic rltes, there have heell rtpons of some seaside r~llages in the Eastern coast where Shamnic elements arc fully incorpora~ecl into what appears LO be Confucian anc.csrral rites.

Speical Issue

keneration up to four generations'[sadm pongsa ILt'l1'2$riel mentioned above applied only 10 the hrnilies ol primogenid descendan~s. 11 is also most doubtful ha^, even when Confucian ancestral rites were practiced, most common people, especially of lower social and economic status, were able to attain the extreme elaboration required in the ritual [ex& ol h e Chosbn period. In short, when arguing for an increasing trend of the universal acceptance of Confucian ritual practices toward the late 19' century and the early 20G'century, what is emphasized is not so much a uniformity or homogenous nalure of its practice. On the contrary, it assumes an establishment of its dominant status as a cultural ideology and value systeni despite the fact that there still existed a considerable gap at the level of actual practices. One of the basic characteristics of patrilineal lineage society is that the family is conceived as a constituent unit 01 a larger lineage that continues and expand5 through the father-son line, and not as a unit that is created by a union of a male and a female as indMduals and is dissolved with the deaths of both spouses. The ideology i s supported by h e insriLution or male succcssion, an inherilancc system that gives priority to the senior male heir, the practice of ancestral rites regularly offered to the forbearers of the. paternal Line, etc. Therefore, one w-ay of assessing the relevance of Conlucianism may be to examine to what extent pamlineal lineages and their supporting ideologies are recognized and practiced in everyday lives of modem Koreans. The demographic shifts that accompanied the urbanization process since the 1960s drastically undermined the infrastructure of a lineage society Between the 1950s and the 1990s, the ratio of rural and urban population has been reversed and most Koreans now live in an urban environtncnt away from their hometown. It is no longer possible for the members of a lineage group to live within one locality and under mutual influence. Most Koreans do not live in a multigeneraiional extended l a d y unit composed ol parents, married children and their families. Most of them instead live in units that sociologists call nuclear families. i t , one married couple and their unmarried children. The proportion of nuclear hmilies is even hgher in some rural arras as here are many aged couples living by themselves with their children in the cities. The residential and economic arrangement notwithstanding, extended family relationshps are d l recognized and exert importance txpecially for the first sons and their families. 1 1 1 other word, despite the changes occurring in actual practice (separate residential arrangements, children other than first sons including daughters economically and physically supporting their parents, rtc.), the persistence of patrilineal ideologies can be observed to the extent that first sons arc still considered as having a special obligation for h e care of aging parents and must expect moral censure when they do not fulfill their obligation for various practical reasons. However, such exclusive responsibility and expectation have become. a source of much conllict in Korean Samilies because they are no longer legally and financially supported by a preferential inheritance system as in the late Chosbn period. The discrepancy between customal): ethical expectations and institutional arrangements create a gap in the perception of obligations that causes much

Spcical Issue

tension among family and lcin mcrnbers. Ancestral Riles: One 01the bases of Korean patrilineal lineages has been the groups that regularly perforn mces~ral rites. White ttlc fonns of anccsn*al rites arc chmgir~g and are being seliously challenged by diflerent religions, Christianity in particular," recent statistics show that more than ninety percent (97.5%;)of the Koran population still perform or participw it1 ancestral riles or one form or another. Kegadcss of the actual religious backgrounds of the wspondents,J' ~11r forms of ancestral rites were reported to be "bnfucian{78.3%), Christian(l5.9%), Catholic(2.7%),Buddhist(2.7%), etc." The reports indicate that, as in the case of lineage ideology and lun obligations, Bmily rituals and especially ancesval rites provide one of the key areas where the differences in the perception of kin obligalions, family and gender roles are manifested, contested, and negotiated. The phenomenon of what is known as mybngjd noiroje commonly noted among urban housewives and relaced reform movements being initiated by Korean feminist groups can be considered examples of such contesradon.
Familism: What may be understood as a modern form of "familism" may be another area where the relevance of Confucian elements in present-day Korea may be considered While the extent and range of actual kinship interaction is being reduced and diversified, the priority of family over i~lclividuals is sUU being clearly observed. Excessive parental devotion to the childrm's educational and wcial achievem.ents may be ccmdered as one example. Wlde obligations toward the aging parem and other emended family members are obviously wcalceaing among i l l i n g to sacrifice their individual lives for modem K o r a n s , rnosl: parenls are still w One may find one such h e sake of what is perceived to be prenlal obliga~ion. example in the phenomenon of what has become known as "wild goose families" [kirGgi hujoh 7 14 7 17 E ] designating , the prolonged separation of husbands and wives, oftm in difkrent counlries, in order to provide a bctcer education for their ctulclreu.

Gender Relationships: In a patrilineal socit~y, i~ is brlieved h a t male lineage members are given priority over females in inheritance and pTOpP.rty ~ights,
succession system, mamagr. arrdngcmcnts, d so Zorth. Keccnt ckvelop~nents in the Korean legal sysccm, however, seeem to have: suhtirantidly undermind r h s e principles. The household head syscemlhojzije P&LYlhas been abolished and children are no longer mandated GO s u c c d their fathers' surname and ancestral place namelpon'gwan +El. The Civil Code amended in March 2005 to be

Moon Okpo, e ~ d1998. .

reflect h e general disrribution or the total Buddhists(36.4%), Christians(ZI.O%),Catholics(S.S%). population showlng No religion(31.9R;). ConCucianists(0.5%) and others.
32 The religions of the respondents more or less

Spcical lssuc

implemented from January 2 , 2007, stipulates that 'A cMd [in principle] rakes the father's surname and place name. But it m a y lake h e moth& surname and place name if the parents have agreed at the time of their mau~iage."~ Moreover, in a prolonged legal case that has become called by the m& "Daughters' Rebellion" or ttal 6 1 7 1 tti pallan TSq $9, i n July 2005, the Korean Supreme Court f i n d y rded in lavour 01equal recognition of a married-out daughter's rights LO the c h a m $+HE]. coiporate properties of tlieil- naml li~leageslchongjut~g As i n the case of the so-called Confucianization proces of the Cbos6n period, these legal and official changes may not cause an irnmedate uanslormation in the everyday life of most Koreans. Most of them wiU s d l take their father's surname and place name, and few women will claim their legal rights in their natal lineage's corporate properties except in a few limited cases. Ir. nevertheless may be taken as a n almost revoluaonary signal of what may be termed as de-Confucianization of Korean family and gender relationslips, that is, a move away from the patrilineal principles that have taken f i r m roots since the late Chosijn period. In sum, it may be said that, while the Confucian framework has been maintained, substantial changes are occurring in its content and it is no longer supported by any kind of consensus. A considerable gap can be noted between generations, between sexes, between classes and regions, and so forth, with regard to the expectations of h i l y and gender rols, kin obligations, forms of rituals, etc. The ways by which these discrepancies are negotiated and settled in everyday life settings ~eflectnot only the intra-familial dynamics but also ihe power relations exicrnal to h c lamily in the realm of religions, politics, and economics of thc hrgtrr
sociery

Chosen Confucian scholars' attitudes toward the L d O ~

Kim Daeycol JNaKO, Paris
1s it shocking to hear that the Choson literati were rahcally or rigidly Nco-

Confucian? Probably not, at least for the general public. This idea has been n most of us, without us being wen clearly aware of it. On the contrary, inculcated i it might be relatively surprising LO hear chat Korean Confucian literati of this

3i A further objection has becn raised by h c Korean Minisuy or women and Family ,ha, the regulation is still biased loward w h a ~Korean feminists c a l l "Principle of Father's 5umamee~pwsdn~i. Xb&$.);l and it is rccommendd rhal the zrricle LO be abolished altogether and be replaced by another more neutral slatcmenl such a s 'Children's surname and place name is to be decided by an ngreernenl 01 dlelr parents."

period widely read and wrote about intellectual, ideological, religious or cosmological traditions other than Confucianism and sometimes even accepted them. It seems to me that the cultural pluraliq of Chosbn society has k n often passed over, although it has not been a secret that different cultural traditions coexisted and even functioned in mumal complementarity as an integrated system of culture, was incontestably one of Coi~fucianism, the doininant currents in Korean society and provided models in almost every field of culture for the Choshn period. However, rhe cultural landscape was complex ancl h e criteria for membership in h e Conhcia~~ religious or idedogical community -the deternlina~ion of which often Llepcnded or1 circumsranc~wcre, in a sense, rather "sofr". As a way LO understand tlik c:ulrural plurali~y, we can Socus on and in~crpxel people's ultimate concerns and consider various traditions a s cultural models or infans to address these concerns, i n s o h as any cultural pattern functions in relation to what is rneaningIul to Inan and to the purposes to which lw aspires. In working on a culn~nl model, we havc to keep in mind,l-~oweve~, that a model often i s like a 1001 and not always the. final or sole aim.This applies in particular wid1 regard to moral ~houghtand religious behaviour, in which man pursues matt.ersthal art lunbmental or ultimi~e. l%m LklS pint of view it is also necessary to take into account Lhc ways in which a dominant tradi~ion is imposed in relation to o ~ h c r culrural factors. In his discussion paper, 1 would like to provide an example by presenting some msrs of Choson li~era~i whose attitudes toward the Laofi are of interest in dGs respect. The established and general position of the Neo-Confucian orthodox school at the beginning of the Chosbbn period was thar Daoism was 'heterodox'[idnn E #I. However, after about two ceilturies long evohion during which Korean NeoConfucianism developed on its own, the literati started to show &verse attitudes: they might be tolerant, open or even receptive vis-a-vis 'heterodox' traditions. The Daoist hygenic system, for example, was highly estimated and adopted in the M i m r 0fEa~teln Medicine, or the Tongu'i pogani '+R earlier chapters of the P~t?ciou.s R B I , whch was published by a ~ o y a order. l Also, many poems of Conhcian literati were inspired by the idea of the world of the Daoist hnortals. When it comes to Daoist philosophical ideas, several scholars of Chodn 3 2 and tried to interpret it wrote commentaries to the Laazi daodejing . differently from their predecessors. About twenty scholars also left shorter texts about t h i s Daoist classic. Some of them stated that those who considered it as a heterodox text did not coirectly understand it. In general, they read the Laozi while keeping heir Corducian eyes. Still, i t seems that Tmm his angle, loo, h e boundaries b e m e n Confucianism m d dic other nahtions might be ainbigm~s for some intrIltrc~ual groups j n Cliosfin. First to attract nur atLention are five co~nmennries on the h z i t h a ~ have been fully lransinitted to the pl-escn~ day (cl: 'Pible I). These luve beeu the subject of studies tha~ have bcen published v q recently. Excep~ or K Ch'u~1gdc(l74+ 1816),Z I U of these commemamrs were well-h~lownaud~ors and thinkers in their time, and moreover, they all occupied one or iht highest official posts in government at one poin~ o l dwir life. Focusing on rhe principles and moral values

Spcical Issue

to which Confucian literati adhered, they found in general h a t certain ideas from the Lacxi can be in accordance w i ~ h Confucianism on the level 01Sundamental thought. A s one 01the pivotal figures in the history 01Kormn Confucianism, Yulgok Yi l(1.536-15841, too, kfr a commentary on he Iwzj. This is characterized by an interpretarion of the Laozi in purely Confucian teims and born an entirely Coducian point ol view, as in the example of his reading ol the word 'inactjon'lmuwi %$$I as meaning governing the people accodng LO the 'Mandate of Heaven'[ch' rinmybng %@I. But for the purposes of this paper the most interesting point is that a large part of his commentary selects the passages concerning 'empty the mind'lson $41or 'hgality'[saek I?$ ! and interprets them from the viewpoint of Confucian moral concerns related to 'sekultivation'[ch'igi %Zl and 'governing the people'lch'iin A]. This raises an interesting question: why did this great Confucian scholar rely on the Laozi to remind h~ readers of h e fundamental moral duty of Confucian literati? In the epilogue to h s commentary, he deplores that m o d persons are too rare in his time, as if he were warning the dominant Confucian elite of his time by propagating moral lmons drawn from the Laozi. Pak Sedang(1629-17031, who frankly criticized Zhu Xi ftg, in his commentary to the Laozi exposed characteristics of Daoism that differed from Confucianism, but tried LO prove that basically these Daoist characteristics were not contradictory to Confucian logic and thought T h i s attitude is also seen in the commenlary of 5 6 My6n@ng(1716-1787). Considered as one of the pioneers of h e 'Northern Sdool'(p~ilthakp'u 4t3l&l,S6 Mybiighlg in his iiuerpretation of the Ltozi even inuoclucrs some proper Daoist cosmoIo@c;il notions (such as chbng ! $ 'essence', Izi E 'pneuma', sin $41'spirit' or 'spiritual consciousness') or practical id= (such as yatzgneng @?k'nourishing life'). Moreover, he &xplainsthe criticisms in h e Laozi drrctrd against some Confucian coficepts('humanity' Tin t l,'l-ighteo~mes' [fii $1, 'learning'lhak $1, lor example) and tries to clanfy the real meaning of these criticisms. For him, they do not colitra&ct the fundamental spirit of Confucianism and even accord with it. This kind olauempt is also seen in h e commentary done by Yi Ch'ungik. A scholar of the Kanghwa school, a Korean Yanpning school entirely clissociatcd from orthodox 2 1 1 1 1%-ism, he even called the author of ihr tcruzi a 'mysterious sage' I hyhsdng 2321. Hong SBkchu(1774-1842) is one of the cerltral figurer of the history of Confucian ideas in 19"' century Korea. While. being widely interested in diverse inteuecmal traditions other than Confucianism, he tried to replace [he perspective of 'ordering h e wodd'[kydngse that stands at the center of Zhu Xi-ist NeoConfucianism. In l k close examination of the similarities and Merences between the ideas of the Laozi and Confucianism, he finds that some ideas in h e book are close to Confucianism, closer not only than the individualism of later Daoists, who were only loolring for individual salvation, but also than the immorality of vulgar Corlfucian Literati, and even than both the dhyiina school of Buddhism and the Yangming school of Neo-Confucianism, who neglect the necessity of striving for the accumulation of learning, which Confucianism advocates. Although he also scrutinizes the limits of the Laozi, he elucidates valid meaning of this Daoist text

expressed in its peculiar ironies, which were employed only to crincize the abuses of its time that were disguised as moral virtues. In addition to these commentaries, some shorter but for my argument no less significant texts coafirm that many Chosen Confucian literati read and even appreciated rl~e so-called 'heterodox' wririag (see Table 2). These texts appeared from the beginning of the 16"' century onward. Before M I, Yi Haeng(1478-1534) declared that the Laod deserved esteem, and Sin Hm(1556-1628), a younger contemporary of Yulgok, sang that it enlightened him and made his mind empty Sin Hfim also argued that the author of the Taozi did not consider the Confucian virtues as defects. but that he was disuessecl about the loss of the WAY arid Virtue, and that h e profou~idmeanings of the hook were distorled by later Daoists and Ruddhis~. Along with Sin m m ,l-li, Kylm(1549-1.618)exprrsserl a similar opinion, WMC Chang % agrcfcl \KithYi Hamg to say that h e Laozi should not be negtec~ecl Beginning with Yun Myu(1617-1680), Cho Kumydngmany balanced their criticisms awnst the Daoist book wilh rhe meem they felt for it. On the one h n d , hey underlined its limits : for example, [he Laozi concerns the "principles of' thing"[rnulli 1 9 R 1 nor those 01human beings(i.e.. Yun I-Iyu, Cho Kumny6ng), or i t talks about the Dao wihout careful corsideraaon. "He(author of the Laozi) was good in beholding che Dao," wrote T m Sangdbk(1683-1719), "but not good in literati did expressing it." On the ocher h a d , h e y regretred that wen Conl~~cian not rightly understad the five thousand words of the Laozi and cri~icizedwlat i could not be criticized. (for example, YLT&u 1673-1744, 1111 Sangdoh Yun K 1741-1826). In K T6ksu's opinion, one could easily misunderstand the book's profundity because of its ambiguous and subtle expressions, and one could thus be misled as also most of h e Daoists were; but one could meet ulthnate beauty and joy in the ideas of hgality and of lack of concern expressed in the book?s To conclude, we could ac fist underline the fact that most of these licerari were hgh oEEicials in government, that is to say, not marginal persons but figures who were central, active and influential in Chosdn society This seems to raise an important question in relation with the general issue of our panel: ro what degree &d the founders of the Zhu Xi-kt school and Korean Neo-Confucian predecessors have authoriry for iater Confucian li~erari? At the least we can say that the acticudes of these licerati toward the Laod were not dogmatic or sectarian. More than to cetmin canonic texts, schools, or clmkmadc persons, they referred t o comprehensive principles or fundamental values, which could possibly blur Confudan identit)! Further research should be done in order to confirm this interpretation and to better understand these "positive" attitudes r e g a r h g [he La07i. The cases arialyzcd in chis paper, however, stern LO .suggest the idea oi an erosion of the borderline be~ween orlhodox Confucianism and philosophical Daoism, coming Irom the vc.ry inside of (he Confucian Llilcrati group itseel Wid1 h boundaries between C~ducianism and the other intellectual or spirinlal t~aditions01 Chosi)n society being so hazy and unslablc, in the final analysis we may ask what were he practical goals and or ultimate concerns in the quest far which some groups of Chos6n literati adopted

the Confucian legacy

Table 1: commentaries

S&M@ngung 1716rJs+ 1787 h4inkter Director A @ , Learning W b senior 2" rank At&E

Todk chipi

iWk
Tamno %2

YiCh'~1ngi.k 1744924l 1816

Kanghwa School

Z%%G

Second StateHongSakchu 1774- Councillor i%%El 1842 senior 1-rank

m,

Noron % & :

C ~ n g n tT2 o

Table 2: other texts

Yi Haeng

T%
S i n Wm
M k

1478- Counciuorm 1534 E x .senior larank

Second State

X
Westerner

Tok Noja

Il%?b
Nojaiim tW7 Tok~oddkk~n~

1556- Minister $@, 1628 senior Pdrank 1569- Third % $ , Minister 1618 senior 3" rank

Bh?
Great Northerner kjp? Noja %+%

Ha Kyun 3 %
CMng ch'ungsin

7
8

1576- Commander 1636 g,F,BE@, 3 % 4 E junior Z"9ank Third State Chang Yu 1587- Councillor W t B 1638 , senior 1" rank Yun Hyu 1617- Minister % U s , %# 1680 senior Prank Pak Sehng 1629- Minister hE, 1703 senior 2d rank Zm S a n w n 1638- Minister 4 1 1 8 , E ) B ~ . 1697 senior2" rank YiToksu 1673- Minister %@, 1744 Director hW, P%B senior 2"' rank

Tok Nojayugam

Noja k~ndoch'e

2 w w 0
Noja To~Bkky3ig
S ' 3 % ? = w 1

w
X

Tok Noja
sgp2

Tok Noja 3tT'3

Noja Yohm sd 23.%%9*

lm Sangdk $k&E Kang 12 Chaehang WtU

I1
.

1683- City Magistrate 1719 n E ( i ~ . ' & ) Small County 1689- Magistra~c
17-56
. .. ..

Soron W?
Soron
,J.Z~

Noja non &+:&*

Mullyed Nuja

junior @rank

rnvwz si7

Cho
l 3 KUw%

@a%$

Assistar11 1693- Section Chief 1737 senior Gdl rank

Noron

Z%?

Tok h'ojn 823%

14

Minister w3, wan@% ! , ; : : D i r u w r r*lzq. &&SF senior 2* rank

1720- Ch'ambong 1783 @+$ junior (afh

Jtf$jg

I'ok Noja iRZ 7

15 SWBYi KwangnF
1(i

rank

Tok Noja $gk+Y'

SOSO

Yun Ki +k ,B
Sin Chak

1741- Third Minister It326 PS m i o r 3"' rank

176018.28

Sfingho
li$

~lmyu

Noju nmhu +@.z+3jg3'

Noja chi tyaks6

17

'$8

School

&sh""
iT.wm
X

, g3EB&*
Noja Todiikkyhg py&@ngsdl$$

& % E M & '

jb

Yongjae sonsacng chip 8RX+%,kwdn

5. "Kamch'iln nok" H & &

* Soddng ujae @$+!,&,

-'j Wmam

hwdn 3 . "Sa' chip SlH. hwon 2. 'S" ;+. 46 Xach'on chip %I$%. hwdn 3, "Kon"

+.
3.

Iphtrc sansaeng yugo ir?$-$&;gfifi, kwan IS. "Pydn" 3#. This text does no1 discuss the ideas o l the Laozi but argues that the person with whom Conlucios is known ro have learned about the rites was nor 7.aozi but Laodan and that the Latter had not written 'the five thousancls words'. namely ihe Lmzi.

REFERENCES

Primary Sources Li Chi Biz. In James L e ~ e t r a n s vol . I. New Hyde Park, New York:University Books. 1967. Analects [Lunyu sz1. In Edward Slingerland, trans. Confucian Analects, with SeleclionsJrom Traditional Commentnvies. 1ndianapolis:Hackett Publishing Co. 2003 Tae Myd~zgnyul ckikhae AT#&&. Seoul:P~)pchcch6. 1964. Srjong sillok t!tZWk(l4I8-1450). Kuksa P'yonch'an wiwbnhoe &%%$Eii%. Sejo silIok ttt-@lBB(1455-1468). Kuksa P'yonch'an wiw6nhoe Mil$%BQM&. SZrngjong siHok &$@@[14h9-1494). Kuksa P'yonch'an wiwnhoe i?Z&%@@R%. Mybn&ngsillok WJXEB(1545-1567).Kuksa P'yonch'an w i d n h o e %@&$gA$$. Kojong Tihwangle sillok &$&&@g@(1863-1907). Kuksa P'yonch'an w i ~ n h o e

B*%E2R&.
Yi Sugwang 3@%(1563-1628).Chibong Yuslil Z$@R. Seou1:ljryu munhwasa.

1975.

CMng Yagyong Tga(1762-1836). Mongmin Sirns&%&C*P. In Wyudang CM& R8228,v0l.C:

Secondary Sources Berger, Peter L. 1969. The Sacvcd Canopy:Elrments o f a Saci~logicalTheory o f Religiun. Garden City NY:Anchor Boolcs. Breuker, Remco E. (ed.) 2007. Kona in the Middle:Korean Studies and Ar-cu Studies. Leiden:CNWS Publications. Ch'oe Chongsbng. 2002. Chosbn Kuhhaeng Liirye yan'gu 34 + g 4d 9;;L. SeouLIlchisa. Chbe Chongang. 2006. "Chos6n cbn'gi-tii chonggyo munhwa wa musok." 4 47Iq %3F f l a F %In Han'guk musokhak, no. 11, pp.7-36. Ch'oe Kibok. 1985. "Chosbnjo Chi6njugyohoefii chesa kiimny6ng kwa Tasanoi chosang chesagwan." & A ~ E $8344 741~) z q q t\).,tq s$!A A ) ~In . Han'guh Kyohoesu nonumjip 11. ir;RZW\ g 4 , Seoul:Han3gukKyohowsa yijn'guso. f Korea. Cambridge Deuchler, Martina. 1992. The Confucian 3-ansformation o MAHanrard University Press. Deuchler, Martha. LTnder the Ancestors' Eyes:Kinship, Status, and Locality in ChosiiPl Kor-ea(forthcoming). Han Cbngjo. 2002. Choan h u g Ituklza chelye ym'gu 34 $71 +7\ 4 14 1 99. Seou1:Tkchokak. Han Sanggil. 2006. Chosdn hugi putgyo wa sach'algye Ed 8 7 1 +$Set4291. Seou1:KySmgin munhwasa. Han U g h . 1976. "Chosdn wangjo ch'op e isasi, hi ptgyo iny6m ui silch'6n kwa sinang chonggyo" 3ged-z %71ql %01~j% $+x 0)gq -1Ja 4 9 % ~ In . Han'guk sanon 3. pp.147-228. Keum Jangtae. 2006. Han'guk yuhak ui Noja ihae W % 8 ! P I 2 ~ I - ~ o l Seoul d. National University Press.

Kim Hakmok.2002. "Chos6n yuhakchacbliii Tod8kkybng chus6k kwa sidae sanghwangSunAn, Sinju liod6kkybng,Chbngno ml chungsimtiro" 39 & ~ X \ - Z Sr j ~ @ * $ & Fe4 3 ~1 qAJkkr$$jJ r+!qEqqJr4k, 9423- ln Tongs6 chElhikyWgm, no.24, pp.1'15-134. Kim 1-lakmok. 2003. "%nch'hn Hong %kchu ka Todbkkyimg ii1 chusijkhan mokchfik" #S 2!RRj7\ %@$T% +?!. P!.q. In ChBlllah y6n'g-u. no.60. pp.5-24. Kim Hakmok. 2004. "Kanghwa hakp'a tii Todakkyong chusi,k e kwar~han i Ch'ungiktii Ch'om6n tamno chungsimuro" '-W koch'al: Ch'owl)n Y 49l 5 4 # T4.n $@ X ~ : # E l$ $ . % l q r 342l. , In Tongsb chblhkydn'gu, no.34. pp.277-299. Lee. Younghee. 2007. "Waitingfor the Sun to Rise:Ch'imgoeng's Poetry and Late Chosbn Buddhism."In SungkyunJoumnl ofEast Asian Studies, vo1.7, no. 1. pp.69-86. Moon, Okpyo et al., 2004. Chosdn yangban iti saenghwal segye 34 odFk221 $2 ~1lPl). Seou1:Paeksa.n sbdang. Walraven, Boudewijn. "Eighteen-Century Buddhist Beliefs and Practices in Mmbul pop6nmun." presented at the 30mannual conference of the Association for Koxan Studies in Europe. Yi Chon@. 1988."Sogj6ksa kwan'gye p k s a charyo kjmt'o" & G A ~ 241 +\ X)Z 8 K . In Chos6n togyo sasang pn'guhoe, ed. Togyo wn Han'guk munhwa 5 WT E ? S9. Seou1:Asea munhwasa. Yi bhiughwa. 1977. Chos6n Musolzko Z@++L!. Scou1:Han'guk halc yrin',pso.