“대동민주”와 조선주자학

Abstract

Around the year 2000, it becomes prominent attempts that try to link Korea's "tradition" and "present" with the view on "Datong(大同)", which appears in the "Liyun(禮運)" section of Liji(禮記), as a concept. In these attempts, "Datong(大同)" works as an intermediary for understanding the present, taking the Korean Confucianism tradition into good consideration. And the "modernity" that lies at the intermediary point exists in an intermingled form of the western centric aspect and the so-called alternative modernity aspect that tries to overcome it. This attention to "Datong(大同)" actually was drawn from the discussion about "Datong(大同)", circa 1900. This is because a vivid trail of trying to confront the elements of the western modernity can be found at this point during the time when the tradition of Confucianism was dominant. By examining the recent concept of "Datong-democracy(大同民主)" proposed by Na Jong-Seok, "Datong(大同)" seems to have a multi-layered structure. For example, it is interpreted to bear the meanings such as publicity, political accountability, meritocracy, and equality, with focuses on "Tianxiaweigong(天下爲公)", "Minben(民本)" and "Anmin(安民)", "Xianneng(賢能)" and "Junping(均平)" in the traditional context of Confucianism. With this, "Datong-democracy(大同民主)" comprises of concepts with implications of universal values derived from the Confucian tradition, and simultaneously, it plays a role of the criticism of reality in the framework of establishing the alternative modern system. This paper, prepared to provide responses to "Datong-democracy(大同民主)" with the perspectives of Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty, attempts to demonstrate the skepticism in using the word "Datong(大同)" by Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty, which was the mainstream of Confucianism during Joseon Dynasty, until as recently as the early twentieth century. At the center of such reluctance is the concern about the exclusion of the Confucian Rites(禮敎) which arises when "Datong(大同)" is regarded as the ultimate ideals on the structure of the contradictory understandings on "Xiaokang(小康)" and "Datong(大同)". By looking into the concerns of Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty on "Datong(大同)", it can be found that "Datong-democracy(大同民主)", which conceptualized "Datong(大同)" and interpreted it as an ideal of Confucianism of Joseon Dynasty and even Confucianism in general, is not considering the problems raised on "Datong(大同)" by Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty, which was the criticism on excluding Confucian Rites(禮敎). This problem can be approached in three different angles. First, there arises a gap between the concepts of Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty that acknowledged Confucian Rites(禮敎) and the concept of "Datong(大同)" that rejected Confucian Rites(禮敎). Second, due to this gap, Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty is excluded from the tradition as Korea's current conversation partner. Third, a comprehensive analysis of the positive and negative aspects of Korean tradition that stems from the acknowledgement of Confucian Rites(禮敎) by Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty is neglected. This eventually leads to considering the possibility of connection with the non-Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty tradition of East Asia that is far from Zhu-Xi studies of Joseon Dynasty, on the flip side of the significance that "Datong-democracy(大同民主)" provided the opportunity to overcome the Western-centered modernity debate by focusing on proving the continuity between Confucianism and Korea at present.