tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post8610953570978924845..comments2024-02-23T23:53:54.842+09:00Comments on Gusts Of Popular Feeling: Foreigners and Foreign Languagesmatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-52472867456257101232010-04-14T08:30:59.502+09:002010-04-14T08:30:59.502+09:00Furthermore, this type of self-concept can be seen...Furthermore, this type of self-concept can be seen in the base Neo-Confucian perceptions established in Korea by T’oegye and Yulgok’s philosophic programs (and before any naysayer says that philosophy doesn’t mean anything, these are the guys that South Koreans print on the 1000 won and the 5000 won notes, you know like George Washington on the dollar bill and Lincoln on the five). T’oegye and Yulgok’s metaphysical debate about principal of <i>li</i> and <i>ch’i</i>, however, have origins that are older and are found in the views of the Chinese Sung Neo-Confucian philosopher, Chu Hsi. <br /><br />In order to fully understand Chu Hsi’s ideas regarding <i>li</i> and <i>ch’i</i>, and the <i>Li-xue</i> (School of Principle) form of Neo-Confucianism that he started, as well as its effects on the Korean mindset, one should understand the historical framework from which these ideas developed. In his discussion of Chu Hsi’s metaphysical program, James T.C. Liu touches on this point and explains: <br /><br />“Chu Hsi provided a metaphysical foundation for Confucianism, for he believed that without this foundation Confucian principles could not endure. Indeed, the confrontation with the Jurchen clearly demonstrated the sad decline of Confucian principles. Chu and his colleagues stood firmly for defense initiatives and the recovery of the North, but against the humiliating peace and shameful surrender to the Jurchen enemy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the general patriotic response of intellectuals to the extraordinary disaster of the Jurchen confrontation figured prominently in the dedicated search for, and deep commitment to, the profound body of knowledge that some have called “neo” Confucianism. Regrettably, most works on Confucianism tend simply to neglect this Jurchen confrontation, as if the history of ideas somehow unfolded by an inner logic, within a vacuum devoid of the military and political issues that were at the time threatening the very basis of cultural survival.” (45)<br /><br />Understanding that Chu Hsi’s metaphysics were the direct result of Jurchen aggression colors the ideals that they engender as being, by their very nature, ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic, and anti-foreign. Conversely though, Chu Hsi’s form of Neo-Confucianism is inherently reliant on the idea of a dichotomy that eternally looks to be integrated into a monistic system of belief. However, it is this foundational dualism that continually creates an evil-other for the Neo-Confucian moral agents to define themselves against and is the central paradoxical dilemma of <i>Li-xue</i> Neo-Confucianism.<br /><br />Work Cited<br /><br />Liu, James T.C. “The Jurchen-Sung Confrontation.” <i>China Under Jurchen Rule: Essays on Chin Intellectual and Cultural History.</i> Ed. Hoyt Cleveland Tillman and Stephen H. West. New York: State University of New York Press, 1995. 39-49.louve9https://www.blogger.com/profile/00970433846166352959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-25186060130469457202010-04-14T08:15:34.042+09:002010-04-14T08:15:34.042+09:00Here is some information that I came across when I...Here is some information that I came across when I wrote my thesis on the effects of Neo-Confucianism on South Korean speculative fiction. It not only begins to explain why Koreans have a negative attitude toward non-Korean people, but it also shows what percentage of the South Korean populace maintains such an attitude as well as why South Koreans attack non-Koreans who are conveyers of culture in a passive-aggressive manner through propaganda.<br /><br /> “Some insight to the apparent chauvinism of South Korea is offered by Marcus Noland, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Noland explains that in 2002 the Pew Survey on Global Attitudes took a public opinion poll. The survey interviewed more than 40,000 people in 46 countries from around the world on a variety of issues. Within this survey, one of the questions asked was whether the respondents agreed with the statement that “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others.” Of the 46 countries polled, France, which is known for its reputation of cultural chauvinism, had only 40 percent of its interviewees agree with the statement. In Russia and the United States, 60 percent of the people polled responded affirmatively, and both of these countries maintain a strong degree of nationalism. The Japanese responded with an even higher rate, with 75 percent of the populace seeing itself as better. <br /><br />“However, according to Noland, the highest percentage of people who viewed their culture as superior to others around the world, with an overwhelming 90 percent of its population believing this to be so, was South Korea. Noland goes on to explain that “Paradoxically, while an astonishing share of Koreans apparently feel culturally superior to the rest of the world, they also apparently lack confidence in that culture’s resilience—five out of six Koreans think that it should be protected from foreign influence” (Noland). Furthermore, in 2007 South Korean people participated in the same survey with no significant change in the results. These ultra-nationalistic and xenophobic elements are what define the Korean cultural identity; statistics like these provide a strong foundation to the claims that ultra-nationalistic and xenophobic views continue to permeate South Korean society and show no signs of changing in the near future. Moreover, this becomes a distinct problem for South Koreans in a world that continues daily to become more of a global community.” <br /><br />To put things plainly, South Koreans believe, simultaneously, that they are better then everyone else, but too weak to protect their superiority. This is what Nietzsche described as a “slave” mentality. What Nietzsche meant by this is that a person or society that is oppressed, in reality or simply in their own self-perception, will seek to overthrow their oppressors by making them “evil.” This is why Koreans are so fearful of globalization; the idea that everyone is equally human destroys there ability to see themselves as better then everyone else.louve9https://www.blogger.com/profile/00970433846166352959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-5006624053412942612010-04-13T09:23:31.534+09:002010-04-13T09:23:31.534+09:00My first, rather off-the-cuff thought - why would ...My first, rather off-the-cuff thought - why would it be seen as a bad thing if your country is perceived as a goldmine of work? If the people coming in can find jobs and otherwise support themselves without causing the society (too many) problems, what's the deal? And yet, a few foreigners commit a few crimes and somehow we're all unqualified?<br /><br />Or would you rather be known as a country where foreigners have a hard time working because of all the red tape and corruption?<br /><br />Kudos on the series.Chris in South Koreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07114300133329984235noreply@blogger.com