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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR> 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.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Dec 31, 2020
Jae-Hwan Lee 
Open Access