지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제117호
- 발행연도
- 2020.9
- 수록면
- 439 - 483 (45page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2020.09.117.439
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Analyzed in this article is, among various Japanese discussions of Confucianism and modernity, Fukuzawa Yukichi’s critical argument that Confucianism is an inappropriate tool to be used in explaining the modern Japanese society. For discussion, not only the case of Japan but also those of Korea and China - in terms of Confucianism’s status in those societies and the level of understanding the people of those countries displayed - are also examined to determine how East Asia was dealing with Confucianism in a time period that witnessed a switching to modernity.
The period which gave birth to Fukuzawa Yukichi’s argument (or arguments with similar perspectives) was witnessing a trend that may be interpreted as a Japanese-styled development of Confucianism. Since the mid-18th century, a substantial number of warrior figures armed with some level of Confucian understanding continued to appear, while Confucianism itself was yet to be fully applied in Japanese governance. But the usage of Confucian terms became a general trend in Japan nonetheless, creating a perceptual atmosphere within the Japanese society which may have led members of the society to not only believe that the concept of a feudal social class system originated within Confucianism itself, but also consider Feudalism as an inherent quality of Confucianism.
For example, based upon such belief, Maruyama Masao argued that Fukuzawa’s stance was a critical analysis of Neo-Confucianism itself, from an opposing standpoint that Fukuzawa tried to elevate to a similar level. Coming into the early 20th century, these kind of arguments transformed the previous discussion of modern Japanese Confucianism into a discussion of East Asian Confucianism in general. This sort of criticism against Confucianism by speakers such as Maruyama reveals a perspective that believes “Dohak,” in this case Neo-Confucianism which was an ideology that prevailed in East Asia during the medieval and early modern periods, was the real reason behind the East Asian people never succeeding in creating a truly independent and self-sustainable state, or becoming able to fully modernize (“Westernize”) themselves.
In China and Joseon, Confucianism was a political philosophy that enabled and encouraged literary figures with no ties to the government to declare themselves as figures that should feel responsibility in general governance and well-being of the country. Yet discussions in Japan -regarding Confucianism in East Asia in general - was trying to paint a new picture, claiming such philosophy was what ‘tamed’ East Asian residents to easily surrender to environments. Fukuzawa Yukichi himself may not have been trying to comment on East Asian history of Confucianism from such a wide angle, yet all the following arguments -using Fukuzawa’s argument as a springboard- defined Confucianism’s role in East Asia as mentioned above.
Today, influenced from such perspective, we tend to consider qualities like ‘obedient attitude’ or ‘premodern under-development’ as signature Confucian traits, but history of Joseon and China does not really match such preconception. The real nature of East Asian Confucianism should be seriously contemplated, and a good place to start may be where such a flawed perception all began, namely Fukuzawa’s criticism of Confucianism and Maruyama’ interpretation of it.
The period which gave birth to Fukuzawa Yukichi’s argument (or arguments with similar perspectives) was witnessing a trend that may be interpreted as a Japanese-styled development of Confucianism. Since the mid-18th century, a substantial number of warrior figures armed with some level of Confucian understanding continued to appear, while Confucianism itself was yet to be fully applied in Japanese governance. But the usage of Confucian terms became a general trend in Japan nonetheless, creating a perceptual atmosphere within the Japanese society which may have led members of the society to not only believe that the concept of a feudal social class system originated within Confucianism itself, but also consider Feudalism as an inherent quality of Confucianism.
For example, based upon such belief, Maruyama Masao argued that Fukuzawa’s stance was a critical analysis of Neo-Confucianism itself, from an opposing standpoint that Fukuzawa tried to elevate to a similar level. Coming into the early 20th century, these kind of arguments transformed the previous discussion of modern Japanese Confucianism into a discussion of East Asian Confucianism in general. This sort of criticism against Confucianism by speakers such as Maruyama reveals a perspective that believes “Dohak,” in this case Neo-Confucianism which was an ideology that prevailed in East Asia during the medieval and early modern periods, was the real reason behind the East Asian people never succeeding in creating a truly independent and self-sustainable state, or becoming able to fully modernize (“Westernize”) themselves.
In China and Joseon, Confucianism was a political philosophy that enabled and encouraged literary figures with no ties to the government to declare themselves as figures that should feel responsibility in general governance and well-being of the country. Yet discussions in Japan -regarding Confucianism in East Asia in general - was trying to paint a new picture, claiming such philosophy was what ‘tamed’ East Asian residents to easily surrender to environments. Fukuzawa Yukichi himself may not have been trying to comment on East Asian history of Confucianism from such a wide angle, yet all the following arguments -using Fukuzawa’s argument as a springboard- defined Confucianism’s role in East Asia as mentioned above.
Today, influenced from such perspective, we tend to consider qualities like ‘obedient attitude’ or ‘premodern under-development’ as signature Confucian traits, but history of Joseon and China does not really match such preconception. The real nature of East Asian Confucianism should be seriously contemplated, and a good place to start may be where such a flawed perception all began, namely Fukuzawa’s criticism of Confucianism and Maruyama’ interpretation of it.
목차
머리말
1. 한 · 일의 사(士)
2. 근세 유학의 보편화
3. 후쿠자와 유키치의 유학비판과 마루야마 마사오의 해석
맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (43)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
동아시아적 시각으로 보는 유학의 현대적 계승의 의미
南冥學硏究
2018 .01
-
武寧王妃 誌石을 통해본 백제 여성의 지위
중국고중세사연구
2016 .11
-
The Need for Confucianism
Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
2021 .02
-
21세기 중국 ‘정치유학’의 이념과 쟁점
유학연구
2015 .11
-
동아시아 삼국에서의 한국유학 연구동향과 그 의미
퇴계학보
2017 .01
-
당대 중국대륙 유학연구의 특징에 관한 탐구와 분석
대동철학
2018 .12
-
후쿠자와 유키치(福澤諭吉)의 ‘궁리(窮理)’ 인식과 과학제국주의
동서철학연구
2015 .06
-
한중일 儒學史에서의 ‘보편’과 ‘특수’
한국실학연구
2023 .06
-
Confucianism as Dependent Variable
Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
2020 .08
-
후쿠자와 유키치의 타이완론 - 마루야마 마사오의 사상과 후쿠자와 유키치의 역사 -
일본연구
2024 .06
-
Historical Semantics of Confucianism during the Transitional Period of Modern Korea
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2023 .06
-
[서평]『새로 쓰는 17세기 조선 유학사』[강지은, 2021, 푸른역사]
한국사상사학
2021 .08
-
현행 〈동아시아사〉 교과서의 불교사 서술의 문제점과 개선 방안
역사교육
2019 .09
-
주자학이 전근대의 대표이념이 되기까지 ― 후쿠자와 유키치와 이노우에 데쓰지로의 유학을 둘러싼 공방 ―
동양철학연구
2021 .11
-
메이지 초기 서양사상 수용의 방법론 ― 후쿠자와 유키치의 ‘분한’을 중심으로 ―
이화사학연구
2019 .01
-
동아시아사 교육과정의 변화와 동아시아사 교육의 전망
역사교육논집
2016 .01
-
사상, 철학, 그리고 유학: 송명유학에 접근하는 세 가지 경로
한국사상사학
2021 .01
-
한‧중 유교의 발전과 교육에 미친 영향
철학∙사상∙문화
2017 .01
-
현대 성리학 연구사에서 도원(道原) 류승국(柳承國)의 위상
한국철학논집
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
‘유교적/병학적 근대’와 후쿠자와 유키치의 정치관
김봉진
정치사상연구
2020
.05
후쿠자와 유키치, 『서양사정 외편』「세상의 문명개화」와 그 전거들
존 힐 버튼
,
새뮤얼 오거스터스 미첼
,
후쿠자와 유키치
외 1명
문명과 경계
2019
.12
문명과 계몽 그리고 내셔널리즘(Nationalism) : 후쿠자와 유키치(福澤諭吉) 재음미(再吟味)
김석근
한국·동양정치사상사학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2011
.08
일본에서의 문명개화론 : 후쿠자와 유키치와 나카에 쵸민을 중심으로
米原謙
한국동양정치사상사연구
2003
.09
19세기 후쿠자와의 시선과 21세기 어느 사상가의 눈, 『후쿠자와 유키치의 문명론의 개략을 정밀하게 읽는다』 -고야스 노부쿠니, 역비, 2007
강상규
역사비평
2008
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0