By Mark Peterson
Recently, I was privileged to attend the 30th International Conference of the Toegye Studies Association — this time held in Taiwan. The Toegye Studies Association was established to learn and perpetuate the teachings of Yi Hwang, who is most familiar to us as the man whose image is on the 1,000 won note. He is on the most common denomination of currency because he is, in effect, one of the “founding fathers” of Korea — we put the founding fathers and mothers on our money, do we not? He has been the most appreciated of all of the scholars of Korea, a nation that reveres scholars.
Yi Hwang is better known by his pen name, Toegye. His scholarly achievements are considered the greatest in all the history of Korea. A 16th-century figure, he is known for his innovative treatment of Confucianism, particularly commentaries on Zhu Xi and other neo-Confucianists.
I learned more about Toegye at this conference — for me, he came out with factors on both sides of the ledger. That is to say, I consider some of the things I learned about him to be on the positive side of the ledger and some on the negative side. Although most in attendance would consider Toegye’s contributions all positive, my understanding of the development of Confucianism in Korea carries some criticisms that, unfortunately, redounded on the negative side of the ledger.
Unquestionably, Toegye’s scholarship was creative and innovative, but from the prospective of the 21st century and the hard times Confucianism has fallen on, Toegye’s philosophy accelerated the factors that are so negative, in light of today’s criticism of Confucianism.
Here, I must clarify the standing of Confucianism in Korea today. I have been surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative view of Korea in many quarters of today’s society. I often see comments on my YouTube channel condemning Confucianism for its oppressive treatment of women, for its fostering of hierarchy in society and for elitism in general. I have been particularly dismayed to see people criticize the “seonbi," the scholar, who has been the core of Korean civil culture for a millennium. I think the unfortunate negative image of the seonbi comes from paintings of the “yangban” landlord lazily sitting by watching his servants doing all kinds of essential labor.
Indeed, there are negative things about the way Confucianism is regarded today. The paper I presented at the conference was titled “Saving Confucianism in the 21st Century: The Need to Divorce it from Patrilinealty.” In the paper, I argued that before the late 17th century, Confucianism existed in a relatively gender-equal society. Political power was always in the hands of the men, but women had equal inheritance rights, equal access to hosting the "jesa," or ancestor ceremonies, and equal standing in establishing marriages — the choice to live at the woman’s home and village, as well as at the man’s.
Gradually, but culminating in the late 17th century, women lost their inheritance rights and in several other ways, Korea adopted “patrilineality” — an awkward translation for the word “bu-gye sahoe” — a male-centered society. From that time forth, reconning of genealogical records, inheritance, jesa ceremonies, residence of married couples, all became centered on the male. This was the beginning of the imbalanced gender behavior in Korea — what the old sayings say — “namjon, yeobi” — “men are respected, women are abased.”
It was the teachings of Toegye and other neo-Confucian scholars that led Korea to this imbalanced standing that is so criticized today. In that regard, unfortunately, Toegye stands on the negative side of the ledger. But it is not such a simple matter. Much of what Toegye taught, personally, was an advocacy for fairness and equality, not only of gender but of social status. He lived in a time of slaveholding, yet he wrote of treating slaves fairly.
Regarding women’s status, it should be remembered first and foremost that Toegye lived at a time of equal inheritances and equal economic standing for women. He lost his first wife in childbirth of their second son. He then married a woman named Kwon who acted independently and even embarrassed him at times, yet he was always patient and understanding.
Toegye’s advocacy of establishing the “jongbeop” — the patrilineal principle — rule based on male dominance, was not based on discrimination against women, although that’s the way it turned out. Toegye and the neo-Confucians found themselves arguing for a society inherently different from their own. Confucius and Zhu Xi, in separate times and separate places, lived in patrilineal societies. They assumed that was what society should be. Toegye lived in a bilateral society — the opposite of a patrilineal society, a society that holds both patrilineal, as well as matrilineal elements.
In searching for the proper spiritual place, Toegye, purposely or inadvertently, led Korea into a male-dominated world — the world that is criticized so heavily in Korea today.
Mark Peterson ([email protected]) is a professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
English (United States) ·