Reconciling Confucianism with Human Rights in East Asia: A Critical Reconstruction of the Contemporary Discourse of Korean Scholars

( Keong Ran Cho ) 성균관대학교 동아시아학술원 2014 Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies Vol.14 No.1

This paper conducts a self-reflexive review of the East-Asian human rights discourse that has taken place in Korean academic circles. This review focuses on the question of Confucianism`s ability to provide cultural resources for forming new conceptions of human rights. The paper acknowledges the fact that the cultural foundation of East Asian societies is communalistic, and points to a need for new approaches and strategies to justify human rights in East Asia. Firstly, communalism should be redefined to engage with the neo-liberalism that enjoys dominance today. Secondly, it should be combined with sufficient reflection on modernity in East Asia. Thirdly, re-interpreting Confucianism within the context of twenty-first-century East Asia requires further investigation into the discourse of Otherness. This paper argues that human rights discourse in East Asia must proceed with a reflective understanding of Western modernity, mainstream Confucian culture, and the tumultuous history of East Asia and that it requires either East Asia`s negation of the negation of its own culture, or a new understanding of it.

중국 주류 지식인의 과거 대면의 방식과 문혁담론 비판

조경란(Cho Keong Ran) 사회와철학연구회 2015 사회와 철학 Vol.0 No.29

이 글은 현금 중국 주류 지식인의 문혁에 대한 대면방식과 그 담론에 대한 비판적 문제제기의 성격을 갖는다. 동시에 이 글은 문혁이 일어난 지 50년이 되었지만 아직 그 언어화의 과정을 통해 역사적 규명이 이루어지지 않았음을 상기하고자 한다. 특히 지식인에게 있어서 비림비공(批林批孔)이라는 집단 경험은 중국 지식인의 상상력을 제한하는 기제로 작동되고 있을 가능성에 주목한다. 중국의 지식인이 정상적인 심성을 가지고 자유로운 사유를 펼치기 위해서는 이제 문혁의 트라우마가 진지하게 담론화되어야 한다고 주장한다. 문혁은 중국에서 이미 마오쩌둥 시대의 평등으로 표상되어 중국모델론의 중요한 구성부분이 되었다. ‘신국가 이데올로기’로서의 중국모델론은 경제성장을 사후적으로 분식해주는 과정에서 나온 이론적 결과물이라는 점을 부정할 수 없다. 이렇게 본다면 관민 협력하에 이루어지는 문혁담론의 양태는 경제성장을 위해서는 복잡한 과거는 덮어두자는 ‘망각협정’의 수준을 뛰어넘어 ‘문혁의 21세기적 재구성’이라 할 만하다. 문혁은 비록 1981년 중국공산당의 ‘역사결의’로 공식적 비판을 받았으나 1989년 천안문 사건 이후 덩샤오핑 정권의 자본주의 강화정책의 재천명 속에서 그 비판이 금지된다. 즉 사회주의 상품화 전략 속에서 문혁은 철저하게 상업적, 오락적 맥락 속에서 담론화된다. 이처럼 문혁에 대한 탈정치화, 탈이데올로기화는 시장의 역량과 관방 권력의 협력 하에 이루어진 것이다. 이런 분위기 속에서 문혁은 문화소비의 대상이 되었고, 반성의 대상이 될 수 없었다. 2008년 북경올림픽을 계기로 다시 문혁은 중국모델론의 구성부분이 되면서 성찰적 담론의 대상이 되지 못하고 있다. This article is intended to remind of the fact that historical clarification through discourse for it has not yet been made, despite 50 years passed since the Cultural Revolution happened. In particular, the possibility that the collective experience of the pilinpikong(批林批孔) may have acted as the mechanism to limit the imagination of China"s intellectuals should be noted. To think freely with a normal mentality, now China"s intellectuals should seriously discourse the aporia, even the trauma, of the Cultural Revolution. In China, the Cultural Revolution that is already represented as the equality of Mao era has become an important part of the theory of China model. Therefore, it can not be denied that the theory of China model as a ‘new state ideology’ is the theoretical result through the process of window - dressing for economic growth in the post. So look, the appearance of discourse about the Cultural Revolution under the public-private partnership deserves to be called ‘21st century reconstruction of the Cultural Revolution’ beyond the level of ‘forgetting Agreement’ to close the com plex past affairs for economic growth. Although the Cultural Revolution had been form ally criticized by ‘history resolutions’ of the Chinese Communist Party in 1981, criticism of it was prohibited through Capitalism - strengthen policies of Deng Xiaoping’s regime after ‘Tiananmen incident’. In other words, the Cultural Revolution is discoursed in a thoroughly commercial and recreational context under the merchandising strategy of communism. Thus de-politicizing and de-ideologizing of the Cultural Revolution is made in cooperation with market capacity and state power. In this atmosphere, whereas cultural revolution has been the subject of cultural consumption, it could never be the subject of reflection. Becoming a part of the theory of Chinese model again in the wake of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Cultural Revolution has never been the subject of introspective discourse.

고뇌하는 영혼, 루쉰

조경란(Cho Keong Ran) 역사비평사 2007 역사비평 Vol.- No.79

현대 중국 민족주의 비판

조경란(Cho Keong Ran) 역사비평사 2010 역사비평 Vol.- No.90

This paper aims to introduce the nationalism discourses in contemporary China and examine China's perception of East Asia that these discourses reflect. Nationalism, along with neo-conservatism, is a keyword to understanding China's contemporary ideological trends. A fun-fledged nationalism discourse in China did not begin until Deng Xiaoping's decision to open up China to capitalism, symbolized by his 1992 inspection tour of southern China. If the early modern period saw the coupling of nationalism with socialism, there was a coupling of nationalism with conservatism after the reform and opening. The task of understanding China's perception of East Asia in Chinese nationalism started not out of a desire to learn its substance and characteristic features but from the following question: why does China, unlike Japan, lack a discourse on Asia? It is curious why China has been without a notable discourse on Asia since the fall of the Chinese empire a century ago. This is all the more curious now given that China reigns as a dominant power in East Asia. I cautiously propose that China does not necessarily lack a discourse on East Asia but that such a discourse exists in a Sinicized form. That is, China's nationalism discourse has emerged as an ideology determining the internal and external characteristics of China as a nation-state, taking socialism's place amidst the changing post-Cold-War international climate. Chinese intellectuals are inherently disposed to the idea of "East Asia in China" rather than "China in East Asia." China's rise as a major economic power in the 21st-centuryonly strengthen this tendency. Among the six strains of nationalism this paper will discuss, anti-Western nationalism and tianxia nationalism emerged from the internalization of China's rising economic status and the traditional Chinese view that East Asia is a part of China. The first similarity these two forms of nationalism share is that the West is designated as China's counterpart. The problem with anti-Western nationalism and tianxia nationalism is that they position China against the West without incorporating democratic values or an East Asian consensus. That being the case, their resistance against the Western value system lacks credibility. For an East Asian impetus, China should alter its outlook from "East Asia in China" to "China in East Asia." To these ends, China must first go through the process of self-objectification. Sun Yat-sen's rule of right, which lacks self-awareness, holds no relevance in 21st-century East Asia. It is because East Asia is no longer a random collection of "peripheries" it is a "region. "Without a change in outlook, Chinese nationalism will not be able to garner domestic or overseas support.

중국의 현대성 문제와 동아시아

조경란(Cho Keong-Ran) 가천대학교 아시아문화연구소 2008 아시아문화연구 Vol.14 No.-

This article is description for necessity of ‘universal community’ in contemporary China. These days Chinese society become conservative. Confucianism got formal citizenship by Hu Jin-Tao’s hexieshehuilun(和諧社會論). New cultural nationalism is a combination of revival confucianism and 90’s nationalism in conditions of China's growing influence on the world economy. New cultural nationalism asserts self-superiority. It is easily overcome by temptation of splendid historical memory. Perhaps self-affirmation of superiority induce to become unwholesome community. The strong centric and related community already is reappearing in the present age. This community exclude the weak easily. I intend to community not to be excluded the weak, I name it ‘universal community’. What construct this community is based formation of new subject. In this case, the new subject can check both feudalism and modernity, in other words, he gets ability to check double problems of modernity adaptation and modernity conquest. But what the new left wing intend academic native sinology asserts modernity conquest without modernity adaptation, the other hand, the right wing asserts modernity adaptation without modernity conquest. Therefore, I will make a proposal, Lu Xun(魯迅)’ individual subject as a model. This individual subject talk both modernity adaptation and modernity conquest freely. It is possible for Lu Xun to approach feudalism and modernity paradoxically.

중국의 ‘메타서사’와 소프트파워의 딜레마: 21세기 중국, 부강 너머를 상상할 수 있는가

조경란(Cho, Keong Ran) 철학연구회 2021 哲學硏究 Vol.- No.135

동아시아와 책임의 사회인문학-1 : 자기 성찰로서의 동아시아론

조경란(Cho Keong Ran) 중국근현대사학회 2011 중국근현대사연구 Vol.49 No.-

This paper intends to interpret social humanities as a matter of responsibility and review the critical East Asia discourse that has been presented by the Changbi circle. Etiologically, the word “Responsibility” has its origin in “response,” which means to react to a certain call in a particular way. An introspective or critical East Asia discourse discussed by the Changbi circle has always been reminded of characteristic space of Korea since the end of the Cold War to accomodate the painful modern and current history of East Asia, and developed the discussion to form the East Asian community. The idea that the people on the Korean peninsula including North Korea, the most painful place, are taken as nexus to the problems of East Asia is a form of response to the call of “infinite others,” a current East Asia. The critical East Asia discourse has been generated in the process of desperate self-examination of the Korean revolution movement and in search of a new direction of such movement for the post-Cold War era. While the effort has been firmly rooted in the modern task of resolving the division system, a problem that has burdened the Korean people heavily, it was not so engrossed in the problem only but recognized its linkage to the rest of East Asia. Over time, the discourse moves to the extent of linking the pursuit of post-modernity through settlement the division of the Korean peninsula and the overcoming of modernity in East Asia to the crack of the world system. And all of this is still underway. The fact that a final destination has not been clearly defined implies that development of the discourse can be likened to the Monad Movement, where significance is found in shaking a seemingly fixed territory and structure with strenuous Deterritorialization. The infinite others in East Asia are the people and the ecological environment. In this regard, the nuclear plant crisis at present should be tabled as an urgent topic for cooperation and solidarity in East Asia as it is threatening the ecological environment in our life. This must be approached in the context of responsibility as well.

논문(論文) : 동아시아와 책임의 사회인문학-1 -자기 성찰로서의 동아시아론-

조경란 ( Keong Ran Cho ) 한국중국근현대사학회(구 중국근현대사학회) 2011 중국현대사연구 Vol.49 No.-

This paper intends to interpret social humanities as a matter of responsibility and review the critical East Asia discourse that has been presented by the Changbi circle. Etiologically, the word "Responsibility" has its origin in "response," which means to react to a certain call in a particular way. An introspective or critical East Asia discourse discussed by the Changbi circle has always been reminded of characteristic space of Korea since the end of the Cold War to accomodate the painful modern and current history of East Asia, and developed the discussion to form the East Asian community. The idea that the people on the Korean peninsula including North Korea, the most painful place, are taken as nexus to the problems of East Asia is a form of response to the call of "infinite others," a current East Asia. The critical East Asia discourse has been generated in the process of desperate self·examination of the Korean revolution movement and in search of a new direction of such movement for the post-Cold War era. While the effort has been firmly rooted in the modem task of resolving the division system, a problem that has burdened the Korean people heavily, it was not so engrossed in the problem only but recognized its linkage to the rest of East Asia. Over time, the discourse moves to the extent of linking the pursuit of post-modernity through settlement the division of the Korean peninsula and the overcoming of modernity in East Asia to the crack of the world system. And all of this is still underway. The fact that a final destination has not been clearly defined implies that development of the discourse can be likened to the Monad Movement, where significance is found in shaking a seemingly fixed territory and structure with strenuous Deterritorialization. The infinite others in East Asia are the people and the ecological environment. In this regard, the nuclear plant crisis at present should be tabled as an urgent topic for cooperation and solidarity in East Asia as it is threatening the ecological environment in our life. This must be approached in the context of responsibility as well.

중국공산당 통치의 정당성과 ‘유교중국’의 재구축-1

조경란(Keong ran Cho) 한국철학회 2017 철학 Vol.0 No.132

이 글은 중국공산당의 주도 아래 기획되고 있는 ‘유교중국’의 재구축과정에서 지식인의 역할에 주목한다. 특히 유교의 현재적 재구성에서 국가의 입장과 달리 정치적인 것을 넘어설 가능성에 관심이 있다. 현재 유교의 ‘통치이념화’의 진행 속도는 교과과정 안에 유교경전이 재진입하는 제도 변화의 단계에까지 와 있다. 1905년 과거제가 폐지되면서 중국에서 유교는 떠도는 유혼(遊魂)이 되었다. 중국의 근현대 100년은 자기부정의 역사였다. 중국공산당은 유교를 부정하면서 계급정당으로 출발한 당이다. 하지만 2000년대에 진입하면서 중국공산당은 어느 특정 계급의 정당이 아닌 ‘국민의 정당’으로 성격변화를 시도하기 시작했다. 혁명당이 아닌 집권당의 정체성을 강화해온 중국공산당으로서는 언제까지나 반전통을 고수할 수 없다. 이제 공산당은 자기 문명과의 관계를 재설정해야 한다. 더구나 경제성장과 함께 마르크스주의는 더 이상 사회통합이데올로기로서의 기능을 상실했다. 민족문화이기 때문에 부정되었던 유교는 이제 같은 이유로 새로운 사회통합 이데올로기의 역할을 떠맡아야 한다. 하지만 이처럼 유교가 화려하게 부활하면서 대륙의 신유학 담론을 주도하는 지식인의 책임과 역할에 대한 재조정 또한 필요하다. 첫째, 유교의 통치이념화의 조건으로서 20세기의 역사경험을 어떻게 수용하고 해석할 것인가. 둘째, 20세기가 만들어놓은 문화적 배경인 평등주의와 개인화, 다원화 경향을 유교의 재해석에 어떻게 활용할 것인가. 최소한 이러한 두 요소가 함축된 유학이어야 ‘비판담론으로서의 유학’, 즉 ‘지속가능한 유학’으로 거듭날 가능성이 존재한다. 멀리는 전통의 재현을 유념하되, 가까이는 20세기의 역사적, 문화적 배경이라는 맥락을 고려하면서 유교를 대담하게 재해석할 때 세계와 아시아가 공감할 수 있는 유학이 새로이 창조될 수 있을 것이다. Currently, the Chinese Communist Party is leading the reconstruction of Confucian China. The main argument of this article is that their new status is determined by the role of the Chinese Communist Party in this process. At present, ‘ruling ideologylization’ of Confucianism has progressed to the stage of institutional change where Confucian scripture enters again in the course of national education. In 1905, as the Imperial examination system was abolished, Confucianism in China became a floating ghost. The modern century of China was the history of self-denial. The Chinese Communist Party denied Confucianism and started as a class party. However, in the 2000s, the Chinese Communist Party began to try to change the character of the party as a National party, not as a party of any particular class. The Chinese Communist Party, which has strengthened the identity of the ruling party, not the revolutionary party, can no longer adhere to anti-tradition. Now the Chinese Communist Party must actively think and explain the relationship with Chinese civilization. Moreover, with economic growth, Marxism no longer functions as a social unity ideology. Confucianism, which was denied because of its national culture, now assumes its role as a new social unity ideology for the same reason. Since Confucianism is resurrected gorgeously in this way, a new search for the responsibility and role of intellectuals becomes necessary. First, how can the historical experience of the twentieth century be accepted and interpreted as a condition of ‘ruling ideologylization’ of Confucianism. Second, how can the cultural background of the 20th century, such as egalitarianism, personalization, and diversification, be used to reinterpret Confucianism? Confucianism, which solves these two problems at least, has the potential to be reborn as a ‘reformertive Confucianism as a discourse of criticism’ or ‘sustainable Confucianism’. When Confucianism is reinterpreted in the context of the reappearance of tradition and the historical and cultural background of the 20th century, Confucianism can be created that can sympathize with the world and Asia.

950년대 동아시아의 반공 자유주의 이데올로기에 대한 재검토 -『자유중국(自由中國)』과 『사상계』의 대항담론 형성 가능성-

조경란 ( Keong Ran Cho ) 한국철학사상연구회 2011 시대와 철학 Vol.22 No.1

This paper reviews anti-communist liberalism of the 50`s based on Sasanggye, a magazine in Korea those days, and Free China of Taiwan. The paper is intended to provide a preliminary study of anti-communist liberalism and explore a possibility of formation of an ideology for resistance at that time. In the 50`s when the cold war system set in, both Korea and Taiwan faced separation in a similar way. The intelligentsia who had loathed communism in North Korea and China made their way to South Korea and Taiwan respectively, and began publishing those magazines. These anti-communists used the magazines as media for open discussion out of the institutions, and were able to form a discourse for resistance for a long term. Recognizing this, the paper explains that the intelligentsia chose anti-communism not at the expense of other possibilities and thoughts for liberalism, and did not remain passive in developing liberal democracy even in the extremely limited time and space presented by the anti-communist and authoritarian regime. Accordingly the judgmental view that the choice of anti-communism by liberalists of the 50`s determined everything in those days can block other possible interpretations about the 50`s. Although the liberal democracy and the anti-communism during the 50`s looked to have solidified the governing ideology, it also proved a possibility for a discourse of resistance in the extremely biased ideological time and space defined by the cold war. Unlike the West or the current East Asia, the liberalism of the 50`s in East Asia were not grounded on class, which presents a lot of other possibilities. If the liberalism in East Asia was rooted in class, it could have been used to argue their inherent vulnerability. But the absence of the class base, ironically, set them free of such criticism. It suggests that there can be a different version of liberalism from the one found in the West.