The Predicament of Modern Discourses on Gender and Religion in Korean Society

The Eclectic Development of Neo-Confucianism and Statecraft from the 18th to the 19th Century

Abstract

Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucian thought, which held a firm status in Joseon as a dominant ideology, began to reveal its limitations in the second half of the seventeenth century, namely in terms of its impracticality. Faced with this problem, the intellectual community of Joseon explored new directions by introducing an eclectic method of Neo-Confucianism and statecraft.

The eclectic combination was intended to confine the role of principle (i) to the realm of pure ethics and incorporate it with the study of practical outcome. Eclecticism expanded to include Northern Learning and bibliographical study as key subjects of incorporation. The approach of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" came to the fore, which in turn exposed the limitations of the eclectic methodology. Now they had to either change the Way to fit the technology or limit the adoption of technology to maintain the Way. In this sense, the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" was the highest and the final stage that Neo-Confucian eclecticism could reach.

Keywords: eclecticism of Neo-Confucianism and statecraft, principle (i), material force (gi), Practical Learning, Northern Learning, the Way, technology, "Eastern Way and Western Technology"

Introduction

After taking firm roots in Joseon society in the days of Yi Hwang (1501-1570) and Yi I (1536-1584), Neo-Confucianism was established as mainstream thought in intellectual circles during the seventeenth century. It was so well in place that some even noted, "Whether learned or ignorant, anyone who can read recites only Chengzhu school's philosophy, so that we do not know if there is any other thought in this country." [1]

Neo-Confucianism, the main theoretical current of the intellectual community of Joseon, is based on the theory of principle (i) and material force (gi), the philosophical foundation upon which rests the entire thought system, including the notion of universe and ontology in Zhu Xi's philosophy. Undoubtedly, the core of the theory of principle and material force is principle. According to Zhu Xi, principle is the ultimate state and principle that is internal in things. principle is something that cannot be confirmed by sense but is always recognized as objectively valid. He states that "For everything that exists, there is a principle that makes it exist. This law applies to each and every existing thing. Nothing exists on its own. It is simply not allowed. This law is from heaven and there is nothing that humans can do about it." Based on this conception of principle, Neo-Confucianists produced the idea of "unity between heaven and man" which meant that human nature, the moral order of society, and the order of nature had the same origin.

Emphasis of human nature as the basis of social and political ethics was a definitive characteristic and an achievement of Neo-Confucianism that made it distinct from conventional Confucianism. But it had limitations as well. What was particularly problematic was that it defined the ever-changing real world with the fixed idea of principle. These features of Neo-Confucianism made it useful in leading the world in an intended direction but at the same time it posed a great danger of making it a tool to regulate reality. Another problem was that it tried to explain what was going on in the world in terms of the relations between principle and material force, which were purely speculative concepts that were removed from reality. Therefore, without intentionally injecting the notion of statecraft, Neo-Confucianism was in danger of slipping into an empty system of thought separated from reality.

This possibility became a reality in the second half of the seventeenth century as Joseon society experienced significant economic development that brought about dramatic social changes such as turmoil in the class system. Neo-Confucianism was incapable of responding to these changes properly. Seizing power in 1694, the Westerners (Seoin), the political faction of Song Si-yeol's (the legitimate inheritor of the Yi I School) league, drove out the Southerners (Namin), and became a dominant force in Joseon. The defeated Southerners maintained the conservative line of Zhu Xi's philosophy by continuing to indulge in the learning of ritual (yehak) and engage in the discourse of principle, material force, mind-heart, and human nature within the boundary of the traditional Neo-Confucianism of Zhu Xi. Becoming a predominant force after the Westerners' faction was divided into the Old Doctrine (Noron) faction and the Young Doctrine (Soron) faction during the reign of King Sukjong, the Old Doctrine faction solidified its camp by putting forth Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucian philosophy, the "doctrines of righteousness towards Ming" (daemyeong uiriron) and anti-Qing "principles for great cause to conquer the north" (bukbeol dae-uiron). In short, Neo-Confucianism in the eighteenth century Joseon had a strong tendency of internalization anchored on principle, material force, mind-heart, and human nature.

Now the intellectual community of Joseon had to explore a new direction. The question they wrestled with was whether to adhere to Neo-Confucianism and resolve the problems within its boundary or to break from Neo-Confucianism and find a new ideology to replace it. In the end, the Joseon dynasty did not see the emergence of an intellectual current entirely rejecting Neo-Confucianism and searching for a new ideology. Rather, they proposed to recognize the intrinsic value of Neo-Confucianism and remedy its problems, and this took the form of combining Neo-Confucianism and the study of statecraft. Here the main concern was how to merge the two, and differences in the method of doing so resulted in theoretical diversification.

Practical Learning and Eclecticism of Neo-Confucianism and Statecraft in the 18th Century

Problems Facing Neo-Confucianism in the 18th-Century Joseon Society

As mentioned earlier, the greatest weakness of Neo-Confucianism lay in the singularity and absoluteness endowed on principle. Neo-Confucianism took up the idea of principle, a value concept described as the principle of existence and of pure goodness, and turned it into an absolute concept. As they tried to understand the ever-changing world from this fixed concept, the gap between theory and reality was inevitable, which made Neo-Confucianism more vulnerable to degeneration into an empty idea. This is why Seo Gyeong-deok (1489-1546) raised a fundamental question regarding the theory of principle and material force earlier on, claiming that principle referred to the law of movement of material force rather than a force that created and dominated the material world. Yi Su-gwang (1563-1628) also said, "Dao (the Way) lies in the daily life of people. Wear hemp in summer and wool in winter. Eat when you are hungry and drink when you are thirsty. That is dao. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong." This is a radical claim asserting that dao do not exist a priori and that it should be sought in reality. Although, claims like this never became dominant under the powerful Neo-Confucian current of the time, questions and doubts were continuously raised regarding it.

As intellectual streams were closely associated with political factions in Joseon, the questions on Neo-Confucianism were raised according to different political factions. In the Young Doctrine faction, Jeong Je-du (1649-1736) took the lead in the philosophy of Wang Yangming, and established the Ganghwa school, which adopted Wang Yangming's philosophy as the topic of family education. Among the Southerners affiliated with the capital faction, who were mostly based in the vicinity of Seoul, Heo Mok (1595-1682), Yun Hyu (1617-1680) and Yu Hyeong-won (1622-1673) systematized the theory, based on which Yi Ik (1681-1763) formed a school in the early eighteenth century. In the empowered Old Doctrine faction, some held a critical view of Neo-Confucianism's preoccupation with the studies of human nature, righteousness, and reason, and made an effort to embrace new ideas. An example was the formation of the Northern Learning (Bukhak) school led by Hong Dae-yong (1731-1783), Bak Ji-won (1737-1805), and Bak Je-ga (1750-1805). All these endeavors can be grouped under Practical Learning (Silhak). While one cannot generalize, it is safe to say that one thing these scholars had in common was that they took issue with the excessive attention Neo-Confucianism gave to the study of the mind-heart and human nature. Jeong Yak-yong (1762-1836) noted on this tendency of Neo-Confucianism as follows:

[2]

This is a sharp criticism leveled against the Neo-Confucianists, who were preoccupied with the issue of mind-heart and human nature and engaged in empty disputes. Many intellectuals at the time shared the view that Neo-Confucianists, wrapped up in the discussion of mind-heart and human nature, ignored real, worldly problems and were unable to respond to them. Bak Ji-won, the mentor of the Northern Learning school, stated that there were only two kinds of reading and learning - whether they were useful for practical purposes or not. He criticized the attitude of Neo-Confucianists who only indulged in the discourse on human nature or on principle and material force. He believed that the traditional attitude of scholars engaged in the discussion of seongmyeong (human nature and the Mandate of Heaven) made them ignorant of the economy, and rendered them ineffective as governors.

The various criticisms leveled against the impracticality of Neo-Confucianism revolved around two main points. One was a critique on Neo-Confucianism itself that the speculative debates on Neo-Confucianism represented by the theory of principle and material force were meaningless. As King Jeongjo put it aptly as a prince, "No matter how fully one discusses the theory of principle and material force, one can never see its utility in mind and body as well as in daily life." [3] Because debates on principle and material force were removed from reality, they were no help in developing the mind-heart and human nature, nor did they serve any practical use. The other point was a critique on the attitude of Neo-Confucianists. One was supposed to study principle to "realize self-cultivation (xiushen), regulate the family (qijia), order the state (zhiguo), and bring peace to the world (pingtianxia)." But scholars only spun empty words all their lives and did not strive to cultivate themselves, so few could manage studies and governance at the same time. [4] In other words, Neo-Confucianists were incapable of managing the affairs of state properly, wrapped up as they were in the vain disputes of principle, material force, human nature, and the Mandate of Heaven.

Naturally, these two points were interconnected. The tendency to indulge in academic discussions derived largely from the Neo-Confucian conception of pursuing principle for principle's sake. Thus, the key to resolve the problem lay in overcoming the idealism of Neo-Confucianism itself. The idealism of Neo-Confucianism was noted even in the days of Zhu Xi. In a rigorous sense, Neo-Confucianism had no direct relationship with practical, worldly activities as its core lay in morality, righteousness, and principle. Against such pitfalls of Neo-Confucianism, an intellectual circle was formed in China, which emphasized practical activities and had more to do with social and political issues such as government policy and the stable livelihood of people than with the refinement of human nature. This tradition was inherited by Chen Liang and Ye Shi in the times of Southern Song and came in conflict with Neo-Confucianism. [5]

Because Neo-Confucianism was not concerned with practical activities, this element had to be imported from outside. From this understanding came an attempt to reconcile Neo-Confucianism with statecraft. The mode of eclectics took different fashions depending on which one of the two was put at the center. Still, the dominant form was that of placing Neo-Confucianism at the center, with statecraft complementing it.

Eclectic Logic for Neo-Confucianism and Statecraft in Silhak

As the core problems of Neo-Confucianism derived fundamentally from the primacy and absoluteness of principle, Practical Learning scholars took issue with, among others things, principle and material force. Particularly, these scholars could not accept principle as it was conceived as the Heavenly Principle or the principle of the universe governing all beings and moral norms. Starting with this conception, they introduced a new logic.

Yu Hyeong-won, who refined the theoretical system of Practical Learning of the Southerners' faction, criticized the existing concept of principle and put forth his own, more practical theory. Unlike the existing concept of principle as the origin of the world and the universal principle that could be applied to all physical phenomena, his concept of practical principle could be summarized as the "principle of things." This refers to the principle governing every individual thing on earth, ranging from natural phenomena to social and political institutions. This approach rejected the traditional way of understanding things based on speculation and inference deriving from principle and material force, and suggested instead that one observe and analyze phenomena and essence of things based on practical theories. In other words, it brings out things and phenomena from the world of thought and speculation to the world of real experience.

Meanwhile, Yi Ik also negated the concept of i (principle) as the law of all existing things and produced instead the idea that there was a principle operating on each individual thing, a view that marked his rejection of the world of essence that was separate from the world of experience.

Northern Learning scholars were dissatisfied with the existing way of understanding principle. Bak Ji-won strongly criticized the outdated mode of thinking that justified everything with the concepts of heaven and principle. He claimed that even if heaven created all things with the force of principle and material force, it could not be said that the world was created as heaven intended, and insisted that the world moved on its own and was in constant change. In a word, he doubted the absoluteness and the primacy of principle.

Negation of the absoluteness and singularity of principle is significant, as it provided the momentum to conceive a new conception of humanity that had been subjugated to principle until then. In the Neo-Confucian ideology, humans were fateful beings who had their nature and ability endowed upon them by heaven at birth, irrespective of individual will. They were forced to eliminate human desires to surpass their fate and recover the Heavenly Principle. But presently they were portrayed as subjective, autonomous beings, and the innate desire for wealth was looked upon as the driving force needed to develop human society. Acceptance of human desire for wealth inspired various economic reform theories and stimulated the development of trade and handicraft, which had been theretofore viewed negatively in society.

It was not just humans who were liberated from the shackles of principle. Nature was liberated as well. In Zhu Xi's theory, nature was thoroughly bound within the ethical interest of principle. Now that its bondage to principle was broken, nature was at last recognized as an independent realm. Moreover, the independent realm became a subject of exploring by humans, who had been newly awakened to their subjectivity. Yu Hyeong-won maintained that one could obtain a clear understanding of the law of things by directly experiencing or thoroughly studying them. To Hong Dae-yong, obtaining knowledge through concrete experience meant "advancing one's knowledge by experiencing and studying the principle of things." [6]

Despite ceaseless criticism assailing the theory of Neo-Confucianism, the concepts of principle and material force themselves were not discarded. Hong argued that "The world is full of material force and principle is in material force" and Bak also suggested that "The world is like a big bowl. It is filled with material force and principle is the reason behind material force." [7] As revealed in these assertions, principle and material force were still important concepts to Practical Learning scholars. What they took issue with was the tendency to explain everything solely in terms of these two concepts.

Having reviewed the theory of principle and material force in Neo-Confucianism, Practical Learning scholars had great interest in statecraft. Their interest was closely related to their commitment to accurately characterize the humans' moral nature. In the then-extant Neo-Confucian philosophy, humans were born with a disposition endowed by heaven. However, Practical Learning scholars rejected this notion and believed that human nature was affected by the social environment. Thus, the environment emerged as an important factor and so did the relationship between mind-heart and social environment.

Yi Ik asserted that Chen Liang's theory of seeking practical result without trying to cultivate oneself was defective because excessive emphasis on practical outcome would end in chaos. He also viewed Zhu Xi's theory as flawed because it overstressed studying and debating dao and ignored real problems, such as governance of the nation and bringing peace to the world. Thus, he claimed that these two goals should be combined to complement each other.

Bak Ji-won believed that there was much to save in Guan Zhong and Shang Yang's idea of emphasizing practical outcome and interest, which was under severe attack from Neo-Confucianists. Bak asserted that their idea was quite useful for establishing institutions, enforcing the law, strengthening the king's power, preventing powerful families from pursuing private interests, building a wealthy country, and providing people with a comfortable life. [8] Asserting that Guan Zhong and Shang Yang had been condemned because the king put practical outcomes over humanity and righteousness in adopting their idea, Bak made it clear that humanity and righteousness should take precedence over practical outcomes. In the same vein, he argued that one must engage in propriety, enjoyment, punishment, and politics on the basis of certain moral norms. He said that "filial piety, brotherhood, loyalty, and trust are the outcomes of learning, whereas propriety, enjoyment, punishment, and governance are the usage of learning." [9]

The relationship between righteousness and practical outcome becomes clearer in Hong Dae-yong's explanation. [10] According to Hong, without righteousness and principle the study of statecraft would only be of practical outcome, whereas the study of righteousness and principle would lose its grounds unless combined with the study of statecraft. Thus, although neither could be discarded, righteousness was more fundamental.10 In other words, Hong viewed the study of righteousness as more fundamental, given that the study of righteousness was concerned with principles to be upheld without fail, and that the study of statecraft defined the means to practice such principles.

The eighteenth-century Practical Learning thus defined the gist of Neo-Confucian philosophy as the study of righteousness and principle, while trying to incorporate the idea of statecraft with this study. In this regard, Practical Learning can be called a "Neo-Confucian eclecticism." The fact that Neo-Confucianism formed the basis means that Practical Learning was to be realized through statecraft rather than regulating it. This provided considerable flexibility in the content of statecraft to be incorporated with Neo-Confucianism, and this flexibility gave them room to accept the civilization of the Qing dynasty. From the viewpoint of the study of righteousness and principle, regulating statecraft, it was unthinkable to adopt the civilization of Qing, which had invaded the Joseon dynasty and dismantled Ming. However, Practical Learning scholars were able to gain leverage by taking the position that they had to learn the Qing civilization in order to truly avenge Ming. As a strategy of adoption, they separated science and technology of Western civilization from Catholicism. As long as Neo-Confucian norms did not contradict the content of the study of statecraft, the eclecticism of Neo-Confucianism and statecraft was able to function as a useful social ideology.

Eclecticism of Neo-Confucianism and Statecraft and the Theory of

"Eastern Way and Western Technology" in the 19th Century

Expansion of Eclecticism in the Early 19th Century and the Theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology"

By nineteenth century, Northern Learning theory became a common, mainstream thought in the main intellectual community. Most Old Doctrine officials, who seized power in the early to mid-nineteenth century and managed the affairs of state, endorsed Northern Learning theory. Unlike in the eighteenth century, in nineteenth-century Northern Learning focused on the bibliographical study of Chinese classics, which had been in mode in the Qing dynasty. It was also called Han Learning (study of Chinese classics) in contrast with Neo-Confucian studies of the Song dynasty. Developed as a methodology of historical research of Chinese classics during the last days of Ming and the early days of Qing by anti-Qing intellectuals such as Gu Yanwu and Huang Zongxi, the bibliographical study originally had a strong undercurrent of statecraft. However, the bibliographic study of Qing that Northern Learning scholars adopted at the time was rather weak in statecraft. Because of this, it was limited in resolving the problems the intellectual community of the late eighteenth-century Joseon faced; however, the significance of the fact that the bibliographical study of Qing gained popularity in Joseon was not negligible. While Neo-Confucianism was criticized that it was preoccupied with abstract concepts defying verification, leading people to think of it as empty (prime examples being the debate over the nature of all things in the universe and over the principle of constitution), bibliographical study was considered relatively practical. [11] And the fundamental reason for this fad of bibliographical study was thought to lie within Neo-Confucianism itself. The intellectual circle of Joseon was still faced with the task of how to overcome constitutional defects inherent in Neo-Confucianism, an issue that had yet to be overcome. Movements to solve this issue arose in three distinct groups.

The first group belonged to the existing sallim (rustic literati) who criticized their own constitution and founded a new scholarly tradition. It was represented by Yu Sin-hwan (1801-1859), a disciple of O Hui-sang (1763-1833) of Giho sallim based in the Gyeonggi and Chungcheong regions, Sin Gi-seon (1851-1909) who studied under Im Heon-hoe (1811-1876) of Giho sallim, and Ha Baek-won (1781-1845), a follower of Song Hwan-gi (1728-1807) of Hoseo sallim covering the Jeolla region.

As it was well demonstrated in Ha Baek-won's statement that "Those who studied under sallim were born after the brothers Cheong Hao, Cheong Yi, and Zhu Xi, so there is no need to worry whether they are not well versed in principle, material force, mind-heart, and human nature. All they need to do is to follow what they learn and practice what they know." [12] As such, they had absolute belief in Zhu Xi's philosophy. However, they criticized the tendency of overemphasizing Neo-Confucian tenets and called for a balanced study including statecraft. Yu Sin-hwan insisted that scholars of the time study the four disciplines that the scholars who had studied under Confucius had focused on, namely, virtuous deeds, language, political affairs, and literature, along with the more esoteric contents of Neo-Confucianism. [13] This was an attempt to embrace various disciplines based on virtuous action expounded by the study of righteousness and principle, which corresponded to the eclectic tradition of eighteenth-century Neo-Confucianism. Following his emphasis on political practice, many of his disciples entered politics.

The second group was comprised of scholars based in Seoul and its vicinity, represented by Yi Seo-gu (1754-1825), Seo Yu-gu (1764-1845), Kim Jeong-hui (1786-1856), Bak Gyu-su (1807-1877), Nam Byeong-cheol (1817-1863), and Kim Yeong-jak (1802-1868). Yi Seo-gu and Seo Yu-gu, from powerful families of the Old Doctrine line, were avid followers of Bak Ji-won, and Bak Gyu-su was a grandson of Bak Ji-won. Nam Byeong-cheol's maternal grand grandfather, Nam Gong-cheol (1760-1840), was also a disciple of Bak Ji-won, so it is safe to say that this group was under the influence of the Northern Learning.

Although it is difficult to generalize their views because they inherited Northern Learning theory, these scholars followed the academic traditions of Hong Dae-yong and Bak Ji-won. While Hong and Bak accepted Neo-Confucianism in the vein of traditional Zhu Xi's philosophy, they tried to transcend the tendency to focus on the mind-heart and human nature, and instead placed the study of statecraft at the core of learning. The record that Bak Gyu-su asked a scholar who was going to China to pay attention to practical instruments and books well demonstrates this point. [14]

The third group was comprised of scholars out of office who were different from sallim. Among this group were Yi Gyu-gyeong (1788-1860) and Choe Han-gi (1803-1877). As it can be expected from the fact that Yi Gyu-gyeong was a grandson of Yi Deok-mu (1741-1793), a forerunning Northern Learning scholar in the second half of the eighteenth century, they were basically baptized into Northern Learning theory. Not holding any pubic office, they could express their views freely without the interference of the central power bloc and thus displayed a relatively strong critical consciousness. Their critical consciousness came from a sense of crisis that the Joseon society was deteriorating and was incapable of responding to changes in the world, the roots of this problem being in the unsound intellectual climate. Yi Gyu-gyeong viewed that the fundamental cause for Joseon's backwardness lay in the sole emphasis on engaging in a discourse on the mind-heart and human nature of heaven and man. [15] This emphasis resulted in a disregard for practical matters, which in turn made Joseon unable to address concrete matters. Choe Han-gi held a similar view. Claiming that preoccupation with the theory of mind-heart and human nature resulted in ignoring the study of administration of righteous people,

[16] he strongly criticized the prejudice of scholars who approved only of their own school and disapproved others. [17] Firmly grounded on this awareness, they tried to explore ways to improve the scholarly environment of Joseon and overcome its backwardness.

The three groups differed in their specific arguments, but their basic attitudes were similar. They all had an unflagging trust in the study of Neo-Confucianism or that of principle of human nature, and at the same time, tried to complement it with other disciplines such as the study of statecraft. This manner of combination followed the methodology of Practical Learning scholars from previous eras. The subjects combined differed between scholars, but a general consensus was formed around four disciplines: the study of Neo-Confucianism, bibliographical study, the study of statecraft, and the study of writing and literature. Moreover, the adoption of Western Learning (Seohak) became a key issue at this time. Because Western civilization was entirely different from that of the Qing, which was the object of adoption among the Northern Learning scholars, the scholars' attitudes toward it was also varied.

Yi Gyu-gyeong attempted to combine Neo-Confucianism with the study of "understanding and describing universal phenomena mathematically" (mingwu dushu), thinking that Western science and technology comprised the core of the study of mingwu dushu. He had great interest in the question how to integrate the two and found the key to the logic of integration in the concept of the Way and "technology." [18] He viewed that while the East valued the metaphysical Way, while stressing the study of principle, material force, human nature, and the Mandate of Heaven, the West attached importance to physical "technology," emphasizing investigation and measurement. Thus the West developed material civilization. Believing that Joseon could similarly achieve an advanced material civilization by obtaining the advanced knowledge of physical "technology," Yi sought to integrate "Eastern Way and Western Technology" (dongdo seogi). However, he presented the theory of the "Chinese origin of Western Learning," arguing that the West imported astronomy and the study of celestial movement from China. He claimed that study on the usage of material force, which was to help in the understanding of technology, originated from Taoism. In this regard, his eclecticism was in fact a breed of the theory of "Eastern Way and Eastern Technology."

Being critical of Yi Gyu-gyeong's eclecticism, Nam Byeong-cheol developed his idea of eclecticism on the premise that Westerners should receive the credit for their achievements. The West's study of astronomy and the study of celestial movement had already been a part of his theory, which was established on the foundation of the four disciplines- the study of poetry and ancient classics, the study of annotation, the study of statecraft, and the study of divine celestial movement and numbers. Yet as Western forces rapidly made inroads into Joseon, Western Learning came under his focal attention. He wrote extensively on Joseon's attitude in the adoption of Western Learning, his main point being that practical achievements of the West needed to be adopted actively, but the learning of the sages should form the basis of adoption. [19] Although he said that Westerners were advanced only in one field - astronomy and the study of celestial movement - his idea that Joseon could adopt all practical achievements of the West based on the learning of the sages was not too different from the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology."

Choe Han-gi was quite unique in the scholarly circles of the nineteenth century. To him, all things could be compared from the standpoint of utility, and any useful thing should be an object of adoption. In his thinking, Neo-Confucianism was not something to be adhered to. However, through the comparison of the Eastern and Western civilizations, he reached the conclusion that measurement, computing windmills, ships, and cannons were of particular importance in the Western civilization in terms of utility, while morality, humanity, and righteousness in Confucian ethics were untradable aspects of civilized life. So, each had something to adopt from the other, making this stance similar to that of "Eastern Way and Western Technology." Yet the distinction between East and West was actually meaningless to him, as everything was the object of comparison and selection from the standpoint of utility. From this universalistic point of view, "Western Way" were not be excluded. His thought transcended the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" and had the potential to develop into a notion that allowed for the malleability of the Way itself.

Entering the 1880s, of the various stances towards incorporating Western knowledge, the dominant one was that of adopting Western technology while adhering to "Eastern Way." Yet the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" was very unstable due to the mechanical combination of two heterogeneous things.

The Development of the Theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology"

in the Late 19th Century and the Limitations of Eclecticism

With China's defeat by Great Britain in two wars, Japan's succumbing to the United States' pressure to open its ports in 1853, and after France's invasion of Joseon in 1866, the people of Joseon felt an overwhelming sense of apprehension towards the West. With the French invasion, Joseon's intellectual community was divided into two, with a pro-war group calling for immediate action against the West, and a pro-peace group that wanted to avoid immediate confrontation and strengthen the nation's power in the long term. These two camps developed contradicting political ideologies, one advocating a heterodoxical rejection of the West and the other advocating enlightenment thought. The "heterodoxy rejection" camp had a superior position under the regency of Heungseon Daewongun (lasting from 1864 to 1873), father of King Gojong, but circumstances changed as King Gojong began to rule directly. The king and his confidants viewed it inevitable to open itself to the West and actively sought state policy to boost national wealth and power for security and protection. The theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" provided the ideological basis for the policy.

King Gojong stressed the mandate for deploying this policy in a royal order written by Kim Yun-sik (1835-1922) in August 1882. In it, he asked "In situations in which an imbalance of power is visibly evident, how can we prevent humiliation and protect our nation if we do not adopt their machines?" This passage shows that adoption of Western technology was an inevitable universal trend of the time and that technology could be adopted selectively and separately from Catholicism. Since Western Learning was first imported to Joseon, there had been a long-running controversy over whether it was possible to separate "Western Way," i.e. the Western thinking from the "Western Technology." Scholars urging the rejection of heterodoxy viewed the separation impossible and unilaterally rejected Western civilization. King Gojong, who wanted to implement an enlightenment policy, felt uncomfortable with this view and presented the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" as the basis for adopting the Western civilization.

Sin Gi-seon, a major theorist of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" in the second half of the nineteenth century, put forth a theory in reaction to the movement to reject Western Learning. Based on the idea of a "separation of the Way and technology," he criticized the view that religion and the Way were one, arguing that "A great deal of what we know as farming came from Western knowledge. But some say that the Way of Westerners is Catholicism, so learning their Way is the same as submitting to their religion. . . . They say this because they do not know that the Way and technology are separate." Sin distinguished between the Way and technology based on the extent to which either was changeable. The Way did not change for all times and places, and examples are the "three bonds and five relations" (samgang oryun), piety, brotherhood, loyalty, and trust. "Technology" is that which can change frequently, as in the areas of propriety, enjoyment, punishment, politics, clothing and food, and everyday objects, as well as the actual use of machines. For changeable machines, utility was the only criterion used to decide whether to adopt or not. If something could be beneficial to society, it should be actively adopted even if it is foreign. Sin took up "the Way and technology" that were separate and combined them into the form of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" as follows:

[20]

The basic structure of this eclecticism followed the logic of "The Way as Constitution and Technology as Means" (doche giyong), that is, accepting the Way as the principle and technology as their concrete outcomes, and this was justified based on the notion of inseparability of the Way and technology. In the sense that Sin started off by separating the Way from technology, he inherited the tradition of the study of statecraft that had been in fashion during the second half of the eighteenth century, which was characterized by its incorporation of Neo-Confucianism and the study of statecraft.

Advocates of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" made it clear that Eastern Way was never to change. Sin emphasized this by saying that the "three bonds and five relations" in human relations, piety, brotherhood, loyalty, and trust were unchangeable. In his reflections on the Coup d'Etat of 1884 (Gapsin Jeongbyeon), Kim Yun-sik noted that "Enlightenment theorists adored Europe and discredited the Way of King Yao and King Shun of ancient China and of Confucius and Mencius, calling the Way of humanity barbarian. They often thought it was enlightenment to change our Way into Western ones." [21] This reveals that Kim viewed the Way of King Yao and King Shun, and those of Confucius and Mencius as constant and absolute.

Thinking that the Way was constant and technology was under the control of the Way was grounded on the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology." Byeon Ok confined the objects of adoption to those that were not against the Way of humanity. This is revealed in his remark that "Catholicism should be banned thoroughly. Technology, medicine, and farming as well as their usefulness and marvelous effects must be learned as long as they do not harm the Way of humanity, and are beneficial to people and production." [22] Even if the theorists of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" did not consciously delineated the limits in adopting Western technology as Byeon Ok did, the scope of adoption was naturally set by taking the stance of putting machines into use on the basis of the Way. Despite being progressive compared with those who rejected heterodoxy, their thinking was still conservative. To take an example, Sin Gi-seon accused Yu Gil-jun (1856-1914), who participated in the Reform of 1895 (Eulmi Gaehyeok), of insulting the military, changing the laws of the deceased king, and embracing foreign law. He also criticized the cabinet system and clauses of the Constitution made in the Reform of 1894 (Gabo Gaehyeok), claiming that it had stripped the king of his power and given it to the people. Because they viewed the loyalty of the king's subjects as an unchangeable Way, it was natural that they rejected any institution that could threaten loyalty-based relations. Kim Yun-sik revealed a conservative tendency in his criticism that adopting the political system of the West constituted an effort to only learn the trivial, instead of the core aspects of Western civilization.

In fact, the limitations of the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" could only be overcome by acknowledging the malleability of the the Way, which hinged upon the premise of unity between Way and technology. If this changeability of the Way was unacceptable, the universal applicability of the Way across all times and spaces should have been at least provable. Although it was not easy to expect this of the "Eastern Way and Western Technology" theorists who believed that the Eastern Way could be transfused to the West and were actually in transfusion, they were not completely trapped within this theoretical boundary.

Sin Gi-seon was a case in point. In his late years, Sin said that "School politics in Europe and America is improving day by day. The main goals and norms of education are different from those of East Asia, but the focus is on three things: righteousness and virtue, practical utilization, and benefit to people" (1906). This quote shows that he tried to leave room to accept even school politics, believing that the West pursued the same goals. In one of his writings published while serving on the writing board of the Giho school, he urged the active adoption of Western Learning. He asserted how imperative it was to begin learning various new fields that existed in the West, such as political science, law, astronomy, geography, and mathematics. Particularly, he stressed the importance of political science by saying that Westerners "adopt views commonly held by the public, govern the world and enact laws in mutual harmony, and interrogate the government on its policy." This is indeed a great shift of thinking.

In Yeonamjip seo (Preface to the Collected Works of Yeonam Bak Ji-won) (1902), Kim Yun-sik notes that no good laws of the West existed that did not correspond to the six Chinese classics. Based on this notion, he placed Bak Ji-won's thought on a par with "New Learning of the West." In Sinhak yuk yeseol (New Learning and the Six Arts) written in 1907, he expressed his view that the new learnings of the West had many things in common with the Confucian "six arts"- ritual, music, calligraphy, arithmetic, chariot driving, and archery - claiming that the political science, law, engineering, and economics of the new learnings corresponded to the fine examples of "ritual" among the "six arts" of the East. He also asserted that the new learnings of the West could have some freedom from the constraints of the Eastern Way by achieving the same status as the "six arts" and the six Chinese classics. Later he also showed a positive view of Western religion. He argued that although people tended to think that the principle of freedom of religion came from the West, this principle was also found in the Way of the late king, and thus there was no need to reject Western religion as long as one could keep one's own nature and did not fail to maintain the original state of mind. He took this position based on the belief that the Way and technology sought the same goals.

Despite this, however, these scholars did not exceed the boundary of the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" in their thinking. Sin Gi-seon created Daedong Hakhoe (Korea Educational Association) in an attempt to put new studies into use on the basis of Confucian ways. In the first issue of the Daedong hakhoebo (Monthly Bulletin of the Korea Educational Association) published in 1908, Kim Yun-sik urged people to seek improvement of life through practical utilization combined with the principles of benevolence, righteousness, morality, and virtue. They clearly defined their position on the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" based on the concept of principle and its concrete phenomena. Ultimately, the logical limitations of the theory remained unchanged. Advocates of "heterodoxy rejection" like Yu In-seok (1841-1915) retained a critical tone, remarking that "Some want to take the Chinese Way as a principle and Western law as its concrete phenomena, but this does not make sense. As principle and concrete phenomena have one foundation, how can the two mix to become one?" [23]

Conclusion

Neo-Confucianism dominated the intellectual community of the Joseon dynasty not only in the eighteenth century, but also for a significant part of the nineteenth century. Joseon intellectuals deeply believed in Neo-Confucianism. Of course, both the conception of and approach to Neo-Confucianism changed somewhat through time. Yet they did not reject Neo-Confucianism per se and thought that it had some use, especially in terms of its constant search for righteousness, principle, human nature, and the Mandate of Heaven. They understood that the ultimate goals of human life, which were to be pursued unconditionally, needed to be established, with concrete policies accompanying them. Therefore, the effort to overcome Neo-Confucianism in the eighteenth to the nineteenth century had the characteristics of eclecticism that combined Neo-Confucianism and statecraft.

The eclectic tendency to complement a Neo-Confucian basis with statecraft expanded to include the study of writing and bibliographical study as it evolved. This eclectic mode was not very problematic because the content of statecraft basically revolved around the elements of feudal reform. However, it revealed limitations as it was transformed into the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" as it incorporated Western Learning as an object of combination.

This was because Western technology, the objects of new incorporation, came from a historical tradition that was different from the East. According to the logic of "the Way and technology," if there had been Western technology, there surely would have been the Western Way that went with them. Thus, the combination of Western technology with the Eastern Way was thought to be unreasonable. The limitations of the eclectic theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" became clear in such situations as introducing the parliamentary system, as this system, Western technology, contradicted the Eastern Way of relations based on loyalty.

There were two ways to resolve this problem: acknowledging the changeability of the Eastern Way, or not adopting Western technology. The first option was to transcend Neo-Confucian eclecticism, and the second was the return to conservative Neo-Confucianism, of which they had been critical. In this sense, the theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" was the highest and the last stage of Neo-Confucian eclecticism.

Bibliography

Bak, Chan-seung. 1993. "19 segi huban dongdo seogiron-ui jeon-gae" (Development of the Theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century). Paper presented at the fifth meeting of the Institute of Korean Studies.

Bak, Gwang-yong. 1995. "18 segi joseon sahoe-ui myeongmal cheongcho sasang ihae" (Understanding the Theoretical Currents of the Late Ming and the Early Qing in Joseon Society during the Eighteenth Century). Gatollic daehak sinhakbu nonmunjip (Collection of Papers of the Catholic University of Korea, College of Theology) 1 (June): 201-234.

Jeong, Ok-ja. 1993. Joseon hugi yeoksa-ui ihae (Understanding the History of the Late Joseon Dynasty). Seoul: Iljisa.

Jeong, Seong-cheol. 1989. Silhakpa-ui cheolhak sasang-gwa sahoe jeongchijeok gyeonhae (Philosophical Thought and the Sociopolitical Views of the Practical Learning School). Vols. 1 and 2. Seoul: Baekwi.

Jo, Gwang. 1998. "Silhak-ui baljeon" (Development of Practical Learning). In Hanguksa (History of Korea). Vol. 35. Gwacheon: National Institute of Korean History.

Kim, Do-hwan. 1998. "Bukhak sasang-gwa nangnon-ui gwan-gye" (Relationship between the Northern Learning Thought and the Theory of Sub-Seoul Scholars). Hangukhak nonjip (Collection of Papers on Korean Studies) 32.

Kim, Jun-seok. 1992. "Yu Seong-won-ui byeonbeomnon-gwa silliron" (Yu Seong-won's Theory of Changing Law and Practical Gain). Dongbang hakji (Journal of Korean Studies) 75.

Kim, Mun-sik. 1996. "Joseon hugi gyeonggi hagin-ui hansong jeolchungnon" (Thoughts on the Eclecticism of the Han and Song Dynasties among the Scholars in the Gyeonggi Region in Late Joseon). Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference of Eastern Studies, Center of Asian Studies, Sungkyunkwan University.

Kim, Myeong-ho. 1990. Yeolha ilgi yeongu (A Study on the Jehol Diary). Seoul: Changbi.

Kim, Tae-yeong. 1998. Silhak-ui gukga gaehyeongnon (On the Theory of National Reform in Practical Learning). Seoul: Seoul National University Press.

Kim, Ui-jin. 1985. "Unyang Kim Yun-sik-ui seohak suyongnon-gwa jeongchi hwaldong" (Kim Yun-sik's View on the Adoption of Western Learning and His Political Activity). M.A. thesis, Yonsei University.

Ko, Yeong-jin. 1999. Joseon sidae sasangsa-reul eotteoke bolgeosin-ga (Understanding the History of Thought in the Joseon Period). Seoul: Pul Bit.

Ku, Man-ok. 2001. "Joseon hugi jujahakjeok ujuron-ui byeondong" (Change in the Theory of Universe in Zhu Xi's Philosophy in the Late Joseon Period). Ph.D. diss., Yonsei University.

Kwon, O-yeong. 1984. "Sin Gi-seon-ui dongdo seogiron yeongu" (A Study of Sin Gi-seon's Theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology"). Cheonggye sahak (Journal of Cheonggye Historical Association) 1.

____________. 1999. Choe Han-gi-ui hangmun-gwa sasang yeongu (A Study of Choe Han-gi's Thought and Philosophy). Seoul: Jipmoondang.

No, Dae-hwan (Noh, Daehwan). 1999. "19 segi dongdo seogiron hyeong-seong gwajeong yeongu" (A Study on the Formation of the Theory of "Eastern Way and Western Technology" in the Nineteenth Century). Ph.D. diss., Seoul National University.

Seo, Jong-tae. 1997. "Joseon wangjo-ui seongnihakjeok ideollogi-wa gukga" (Neo-Confucian Ideology and State in the Joseon Dynasty). In Gyohoe-wa gukga (Church and State). Incheon: Incheon Catholic University Press.

Yi, Beom-hak. 1989. "Songdae jujahak-ui seongnip-gwa baljeon" (Formation and Development of Zhu Xi's Philosophy in the Song Dynasty). In Gangjwa jungguksa (Lectures on Chinese History). Vol 3. Seoul: Jisik Sanupsa.

Yu, Bong-hak. 1995. Yeonam ilpa bukhak sasang yeongu (A Study of the Northern Learning Theory of Yeonam Bak Ji-won and His Followers). Seoul: Iljisa.

Noh Daehwan (No, Dae-hwan) is Assistant Professor in the College of Arts, Dongyang University. He received his Ph.D. from Seoul National University in 1999. His publications include Jeongjodae-ui sasang-gwa munhwa (Thoughts and Culture during the Reign of King Jeongjo) (1999) and Gojeon soseolsok yeoksa yeohaeng (A Journey through the History in Classical Novels) (2002). E-mail: hwan@dyu.ac.kr.

Footnotes

1. Jang Yu, Gyegok manpil (Essays of Gyegok Jang Yu), gwon 1.

2. Jeong Yak-yong, "Ohangnon" (Discourse on the Five Schools), in Yeoyudang jeonseo (The Collected Works of Yeoyudang Jeong Yak-yong), bk. 1, gwon 11.

3. Hong Dae-yong, "Gyebang ilgi" (Diary of the Crown Prince's Quarters), 18 February 1774, in Damheonseo (The Works of Damheon Hong Dae-yong), gwon 2.

4. Nam Gong-cheol, "Pungsokgi" (On Customs), in Yeongonggo (The Manuscripts of Nam Gong-cheol), gwon 2.

5. Yi Beom-hak (1989), pp. 226-231.

6. Hong Dae-yong, "Yeojo eumseo" (Love Phrases and Books of Romance), in Dam-heonseo, gwon 2.

7. Bak Ji-won, "Dap Im Hyeong-o ron wondoseo" (Reply to Im Hyeong-o Regarding Dao), in Yeonamjip (Works of Yeonam Bak Ji-won), gwon 20.

8. Bak Jong-chae, Gwajeongnok (Records of My Father's Teachings), gwon 4.

9. Bak Ji-won, "Wonsa" (The Original Characteristics of the Confucian Scholars), in Yeonamjip, gwon 10.

10. Hong Dae-yong, "Opaeng mundap" (Dialogue among Hong Dae-yong, O, and Paeng), in Damheonseo, gwon 7.

11. Hong Seok-ju, Hakgang sanpil (Essays of Hong Seok-ju), gwon 1.

12. Ha Baek-won, "Dap Isa Gangujeong" (��˧��), in Gyunam munjip (The Collected Works of Gyunam Ha Baek-won), gwon 3.

13. Refer to Yu Sin-hwan, Bongseojip (The Collected Works of Bongseo Yu Sin-hwan).

14. Bak Gyu-su, "Yeohong ilneung yanghu seo" (Writings to Ilneung Yang Hu), in Jangam mun-go (The Works of Jangam Bak Gyu-su), gwon 7.

15. Yi Gyu-gyeong, "Seup yugye yuk yeongjae byeonjeungseol" (Writings on Raising Gifted Children through the Six Arts), in Oju yeonmun jangjeon san-go (Random Expatiations of Oju Yi Gyu-gyeong), gwon 14; "Chunso sibirwon byeonjeungseol" (Writings on Chunso's Sibirwon), in Oju yeonmun jangjeon san-go, gwon 41.

16. Choe Han-gi, "Utan seon-geo" (Apprehending and Deploring the Election System), in Injeong (Governance of People), gwon 16.

17. Choe Han-gi, "Jeong sonik hak yeonhyeok" (Advantage and Disadvantage of Politics and History of Learning), in Chucheuk rok (Discourse on Hypothesizing and Measuring), gwon 6.

18. The concept of "the Way and technology" is mentioned in the "Xici" (Appended Phrases) section of the Yijing (Book of Change), which says that "what is metaphysical is called "the Way" (dao Գ) and what is physical is called "technology" (qi ��).

19. Nam Byeong-cheol, "Seo chubosokhae hu" (Postscript to the Chubo sokhae), in Gyujae seonsaeng munjip (The Collected Works of Gyujae Nam Byeong-cheol), gwon 5.

20. An Jong-su, "Sigangwon munhak dongyang Sin Gi-seon seo," in Nongjeong sinpyeon (New Methods of Farming) (1881).

21. Kim Yun-sik, Sok eumcheongsa (Supplement to the Memoirs of Kim Yun-sik).

22. Seungjeongwon ilgi (Diaries of the Royal Secretariat), seventh day of the 10th lunar month, 19th year of King Gojong's reign (1882).

23. Yu In-seok, Uju mundap (Dialogue on the Universe).