The so-called "Asiatic Value" controversy in the 1990s was primarily spun on the axis of human rights and culture. Given that the controversy is still an unsettling issue in the new Millenium, this paper attempts to make an interim review of the scholarly debates and to examine their critical releva...
The so-called "Asiatic Value" controversy in the 1990s was primarily spun on the axis of human rights and culture. Given that the controversy is still an unsettling issue in the new Millenium, this paper attempts to make an interim review of the scholarly debates and to examine their critical relevancy-especially those views that have drawn much critical attention in South Korean academic circles. Although modem society is underiably moving towards multiculturalism, it is still troubled by cultural nationalism. Despite the de-politicizing, de-nationalizing cultural trends across the modem world, "nation" in a traditional sense has not entirely lost its currency on the contrary, it is gaining more force in some regions, particularly in Asia, as the central bearer of culture. Some Asian politicians and intellectuals have emphasized (1) the priorities of the values of community over human rights; and (2) innate Asian cultural heritages that may fully counter Western concepts of human rights. There are three types of Asiatic Value theories. The first one is the theory of innate Asiatic values, of which the leading proponent is Lee Kuan-yew, former Premier of Singapore. Lee, who has been the key figure in the development of Singapore into an economically advanced country, has criticized the unmoralism of Western democracy in comparison with the Asians' innate values, which he argues are at the core of his country's success. This theory arguably reduces the terms of moral value to a matter of economic success. Also, it provokingly extends the ideas of democracy and human rights to the whole spectrum of culture. Accordingly, the Western culture that emphasizes human rights is to be denounced as a "colonizing" one vis-a-vis the traditional cultures of Asia. As many European scholars have pointed out, this theory is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights. The second type is the theory of Confucian democracy, of which the central scholar is Ham Jae-Bong. Ham argues (1) that Confucianism and the concept of human rights are not contradictory; (2) that, even if we come across a certain contradiction, we must choose traditional moral values. One may find Ham's moral proposition refutable, in that Ham considers morality only in terms of the self-discipline of an individual, excluding any room for moral concerns in Western democracy. In so doing, Ham overlooks the history of Western democracy that fought over individualism in ideas as well as political systems. The third type is the theory of progressive cultural democracy. Lee Seung-Hwan puts forward a proposal (1) that we may discover concepts of "rights" and social "Justice" within the Confucian tradition that could be compared to the Western concepts; (2) that a liberal culture respecting individuals rights and a community-oriented traditional culture could complement each other. Lee's position is not different from Ham's, in that he also considers modem Western liberalism privileging "freedom irrespective of morals". The kind of "active freedom" proposed by Lee can hardly be applied to every citizen; It is one that may be allowed to a moralist who can exercise an absolute control over his or her own desires. Lee too admits that moral virtue and social Justice are different matters; so he leaves his theory begging questions about how they could be simultaneously ensured in our society. Furthermore, Lee does not present any realistic vision about how moral virtue could be a foundation for the management of the entire society. In conclusion, the theorists of "Asiatic Values" originally come from a distrust about the modernity of Western civilization that is characterized by enlightenment, capitalism, and industrialization. They share a strong antipathy against the history of Western imperial conquests and individualism. Consequently they refuse certain general concepts of a civil societ..
The so-called "Asiatic Value" controversy in the 1990s was primarily spun on the axis of human rights and culture. Given that the controversy is still an unsettling issue in the new Millenium, this paper attempts to make an interim review of the scholarly debates and to examine their critical relevancy-especially those views that have drawn much critical attention in South Korean academic circles. Although modem society is underiably moving towards multiculturalism, it is still troubled by cultural nationalism. Despite the de-politicizing, de-nationalizing cultural trends across the modem world, "nation" in a traditional sense has not entirely lost its currency on the contrary, it is gaining more force in some regions, particularly in Asia, as the central bearer of culture. Some Asian politicians and intellectuals have emphasized (1) the priorities of the values of community over human rights; and (2) innate Asian cultural heritages that may fully counter Western concepts of human rights. There are three types of Asiatic Value theories. The first one is the theory of innate Asiatic values, of which the leading proponent is Lee Kuan-yew, former Premier of Singapore. Lee, who has been the key figure in the development of Singapore into an economically advanced country, has criticized the unmoralism of Western democracy in comparison with the Asians' innate values, which he argues are at the core of his country's success. This theory arguably reduces the terms of moral value to a matter of economic success. Also, it provokingly extends the ideas of democracy and human rights to the whole spectrum of culture. Accordingly, the Western culture that emphasizes human rights is to be denounced as a "colonizing" one vis-a-vis the traditional cultures of Asia. As many European scholars have pointed out, this theory is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights. The second type is the theory of Confucian democracy, of which the central scholar is Ham Jae-Bong. Ham argues (1) that Confucianism and the concept of human rights are not contradictory; (2) that, even if we come across a certain contradiction, we must choose traditional moral values. One may find Ham's moral proposition refutable, in that Ham considers morality only in terms of the self-discipline of an individual, excluding any room for moral concerns in Western democracy. In so doing, Ham overlooks the history of Western democracy that fought over individualism in ideas as well as political systems. The third type is the theory of progressive cultural democracy. Lee Seung-Hwan puts forward a proposal (1) that we may discover concepts of "rights" and social "Justice" within the Confucian tradition that could be compared to the Western concepts; (2) that a liberal culture respecting individuals rights and a community-oriented traditional culture could complement each other. Lee's position is not different from Ham's, in that he also considers modem Western liberalism privileging "freedom irrespective of morals". The kind of "active freedom" proposed by Lee can hardly be applied to every citizen; It is one that may be allowed to a moralist who can exercise an absolute control over his or her own desires. Lee too admits that moral virtue and social Justice are different matters; so he leaves his theory begging questions about how they could be simultaneously ensured in our society. Furthermore, Lee does not present any realistic vision about how moral virtue could be a foundation for the management of the entire society. In conclusion, the theorists of "Asiatic Values" originally come from a distrust about the modernity of Western civilization that is characterized by enlightenment, capitalism, and industrialization. They share a strong antipathy against the history of Western imperial conquests and individualism. Consequently they refuse certain general concepts of a civil societ..
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.