Some Reflections on the Study of “East Asian Confucianisms”:
Its Rationale and Its Problematiques
Chun-chieh Huang
Distinguished Professor of History
National Taiwan University
Research Fellow, Academia Sinica[Abstract]
The purpose of this article is not to repeat the cliché that Confucianism is thesine qua non in East Asian civilization, but that a paradigm of “East Asian
Confucianisms” can open up a brand new vista for the study of Confucian traditions
in East Asia. What I am trying to argue in the essay is that we have to get out of thegrotto of “national learning,” which takes state-centrism as the basis of Confucianism.
Instead, we have to consider the development of Confucianism in a broader East
Asian perspective. By contextualizing Confucianism in East Asian cultures andsocieties, we find ourselves in a better position to appreciate the diversity and varietyof the problematiques of East Asian Confucian traditions.
Concretely, this essay offers an explanation of how legitimate studying “EastAsian Confucianisms” is, and how promising it is as new research. Section One
explains Tsuda Sôkichi’s (津田左右吉, 1873-1961) doubts on the validity of thenotion of “East Asian Civilization.” Section Two confirms “East Asian
Confucianisms” as a valid new field of study, with rich and distinct “unity indiversity.” Section Three, on “The Problematique,” goes on to explain that seeing
Confucianism in the wide perspective of East Asia opens up a novel vista for future
investigation with new questions hitherto unknown. Section Four summarizes theentire essay.
Keywords: East Asia, Confucianisms, Tsuda Sôkichi, Tokugawa Japan, Choson
Korea, China

「東亞儒學」研究的理論基礎與問題意識：全球化時代的視野
黃俊傑

【中文提要】

本文探討「東亞儒學」作為一個新的研究領域之可行性、理由及新問題意識。
本文第一節首先討論津田左右吉（1873-1961）反對「東亞文化」或「東洋精神」
的主張，指出津田學說潛藏著方法論的個體論傾向，並且浸潤在蔑視中國的時代
氛圍之中。本文第二節從兩個角度分析「東亞儒學」作為研究領域之所以成立的
理由在於：在歷史進程中，「東亞儒學」有其發展的整體性與思想的相似性；在21 世紀人文研究中，「東亞儒學」的研究應聚焦於東亞各國的主體性發展過程之中，而非抽離於各國具體情境之上，因此，「東亞儒學」亦可作為觀察東亞各國思想與文化的指標或竹內好（1910-1977）所謂的「方法」。
本文第三節指出，作為新研究領域的「東亞儒學」包含諸多新問題意識，其犖犖大者有二：（1）中國儒家價值理念與東亞周邊國家地域特性之緊張與融合；（2）東亞周邊地區儒者的「文化認同」與「政治認同」之二重結構及其張力。
本文結論指出，「東亞儒學」的提法，並不是一種「折射的東方主義」，也不是一
種東亞的新「國學」，而是以東亞為視野，以儒家價值為核心，以東亞文化為脈絡的新研究領域。「東亞儒學」中潛藏著豐富的精神資源，可以作為亞洲人參與
21 世紀文明對話的基礎。

Some Reflections on the study of “East Asian Confucianisms”:
Its Rationale and Its Problematiques
Chun-chieh Huang

Distinguished Professor of History
National Taiwan University
Research Fellow, Academia Sinica
e-mail: cc10.huang@msa.hinet.net
http://huang.cc.ntu.edu.tw

Introduction
The purpose of this article is not to repeat the cliché that Confucianism is thesine qua non in East Asian civilization, but that a paradigm of “East Asian
Confucianisms” can open up a brand new vista for the study of Confucian traditions
in East Asia. What I am trying to argue in the essay is that we have to get out of thegrotto of “national learning,” which takes state-centrism as the basis of Confucianism.
Instead, we have to consider the development of Confucianism in a broader East
Asian perspective. By contextualizing Confucianism in East Asian cultures andsocieties, we find ourselves in a better position to appreciate the diversity and varietyof the problematiques of East Asian Confucian traditions.
Concretely, this essay offers an explanation of how legitimate studying “EastAsian Confucianisms” is, and how promising it is as a new field of study. Section One
explains Tsuda Sôkichi’s (津田左右吉, 1873-1961) doubts on the validity of thenotion of “East Asian Civilization.” Section Two confirms “East Asian Confucianism”
as a valid new field of study, with rich and distinct “unity in diversity.” Section Three,on The Problematiques, goes on to explain that seeing Confucianism in the wide
perspective of East Asia opens up a novel vista for future investigation with newquestions hitherto unknown. Section Four summarizes the entire essay.

11. The Possibility

Our position on the legitimacy of “East Asian Confucianisms” as a field of study
must begin with Tsuda Sôkichi’s objection to the idea of “East Asian civilization.” A
guiding thread in Tsuda Sôkichi’s enormous scholarship is the idea that Japaneseculture and Chinese culture are completely different, and therefore the ideas of “EastAsian Civilization” and “East Asian Spirit” exist only in cultural imagination.
He insisted that the Japanese lifestyle differs completely from that of the Chinese,
especially in clan and social organization, political style and customs. He saw nothingin common between Japan and China, for that, as Tsuda Sôkichi stated, the two differ
in ethnicity, language, and even species. Furthermore, regional conditions, geographic,climatic, and other causes have resulted in the differences between them in clothing,food, shelter and social psychology. He quoted Sakuma Shôzan (佐久間象山,
1811-1864) to further explain that the expression “East Asia” gained general cultural
currency only in the nineteenth century. In fact, there was nothing substantial to theconcept of “East Asia.”1
Surveying all these, we realize that certain features of Tsuda Sôkichi’s
intellectual background inclined him to deny the idea of an encompassing East Asian
Civilization. He was a strong supporter of the Meiji regime’s new culture and did nothesitate to show his disdain for the Chinese culture. Tsuda Sôkichi’s writings,
repeatedly stressing the gap between these two cultures, convey his stance clearly.
However, as Masubuchi Tatsuo (增淵龍夫, 1916-1983) pointed out,2 Tsuda Sôkichi’s

Tsuda Sôkichi, Tsuda Sôkichi Zenshû 津田左右吉全集 (Complete Works of Tsuda Sôkichi) (Tokyo:
Iwanami shoden, 1965), Vol. 20, p. 195 and pp. 302-303.
2
Masubichi Tatsuo, “Nihon no kindai shigakushi niokeru Chûgoku do Nihon: Tsuda Sôkichi no baii”
1

日本の近代史學史における中國と日本：津田左右吉の場合 (China and Japan in the History ofHistoriography of Modern Japan), in his Rekishika no Tôjidaishi teki Kôsatsu ni tsuide 歷史家の同2critique of Chinese culture was written from an outsider’s point of view, in lack of an
inner sympathetic understanding of China. Tsuda Sôkichi lived in the late nineteenthand the early twentieth century, when Japan underwent radical modernization andheaded for militarism. It is no surprising that Tsuda Sôkichi was deeply influenced by
the contemporary outlook of his time.
Another example was Naitô Konan (內藤湖南, 1866-1934). Although Naitô
Konan believed that East Asian history had been formed and conditioned by the
Chinese culture, yet he stressed only what he thought to be the advanced features ofChinese culture.3 When he traveled in China, he felt uncomfortable with its people
and customs. Sometimes, he was even distressed by their apparent barbarism. 4
Embracing the sense of Japanese superiority, he felt out of place when he visited the
new Japanese colony, Taiwan, and insisted that the Taiwanese did not deserve equal
rights under the Japanese Empire.5
Slightly earlier, Fukuzawa Yukichi (福澤諭吉, 1834-1901), a pivotal architect ofmodern Japan, had stated in an influential work that the Western powers represented
the goal of progress. From his point of view, European powers and America were themost civilized, Asian Turkey, China and Japan were half-developed, and African andAustralian nations were barbaric. In addition to the classification, he considered China
moved backward in the evolutionary stages of civilization.6
This predilection of worshiping the West as the best and looking down on Asian
cultures (especially the Chinese one) was characteristic of contemporary Japanese
時代史的考察について (A Historian’s Observation of Contemporary History) (Tokyo: Iwanami
shoden, 1983), pp. 3-48.
3
Naitô Konan, Naitô Konan Zenshû 內藤湖南全集 (Complete Works of Naitô Konan) (Tokyo:
Chikuma shoden, 1944), Vol. 1, p. 9.
4
Naitô Konan Zenshû, Vol. 2, p. 75.
5
Naitô Konan Zenshû, Vol. 2, pp. 394-396.
6

Fukuzawa Yukichi, Bunmeiron no Gairaiku 文 明 論 の 概 略 (Introduction to the Theory of
Civilizations) (Tokyo: Iwanami shoden, 1997), pp. 25-55.
3

thinking, since the country had just completed the Meiji modernization. Drawing afirm line between Japan and China, Tsuda Sôkichi not only made his scorn toward
China obvious, but also reflected the Zeitgeist of his age.
Still, Tsuda Sôkichi’s critique of the idea of East Asian Civilization bears
some methodological suggestions for the possibility of “East Asian Confucianisms,”
and implies a kind of methodological individualism. According to him, “East Asian
Confucianisms” do not exist. What exist are those entities with unique features, suchas Chinese Confucianism, Japanese Confucianism, and Korean Confucianism. Thus,
comprehensive “East Asian Confucianisms” exist only when we can see and examine
Confucianism in each of these cultures.

2. The Rationale(a) East Asian Confucianisms as Reality of History
The rationale for East Asian Confucianisms as a field of study is twofold. On the
one hand, East Asian Confucianisms embrace the Confucian traditions of China,
Japan, Korea and Taiwan. On the other hand, the varied Confucian traditions in thesecultures did not form a mechanical assemblage, but rather a comprehensive,
developing, and systematic whole. An explanation is as follows.
East Asian Confucianisms genetically display a developmental holism.
Confucianism, as is well-known, originated in Shandong, China, two thousands years
ago. By the sixteenth century, with Korea serving as a critical bridge, it had spread toJapan and occupied a major place in the country’s philosophical mainstream. During
the Tokugawa period, Japanese Zhu Xi (Huian, 晦 庵 , 1130-1200) school ofConfucianism began to take shape, due to Zhu Xi studies being greatly influential in
Chôson (1391-1910), especially in the writings of Korean scholar Yi Tuigae (李退溪,41501-1570), most of whose works were published in Japan as well. Then a Ming
(1368-1644) scholar Lo Qinshun (羅欽順, 1466-1547) revised Zhu Xi’s philosophy in
his Kunzhiji (困知記, Knowledge Acquired through Adversity), a book of profound
impact on the Tokugawa intellectual world. Lo’s book was printed in Japan on thebasis of the Korean version.7
Besides through Korea, Chinese Confucian classics also reached Japan directly
by way of seas. Scholars report that the Chinese classics began to appear in Japan
from the ninth century, and by the nineteenth century, 70-80% of the Chinese classics
could be found there. In addition to classics, Japanese thought and culture were under
great influence of other Chinese publications such as histories and biographies, local
gazettes, law books, etc.8
In the historical development of East Asian Confucianisms, many classics—
together with ideas found in them—were transmitted from China to Korea and Japan,
as ripple effects of a stone dropped into a pond, to form developmental holism.
By the same token, Confucianism throughout East Asia exhibits a similar integral
pattern. Given the fact that Confucianism in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan has
regional features, Confucians in different places read the same texts of Confucianclassics, such as the Analects, the Mencius, the Great Learning and the Doctrine of
the Mean. Thus, they all came to ponder on similar ideas in the Confucian tradition
such as what “A single thread to connect my Way” (Analects, 4:15 and 15:3) is, “At
fifty, I comprehend the mandate of Heaven,” (Analects, 2:4) “To learn something, and

Abe Yoshio 阿部吉雄, Nihon Shûshigaku to Chosen 日本朱子學と朝鮮 (Japanese Zhu Xi Schoolof Neo-Confucianism and Korea) (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku shuppankai, 1965, 1975), p. 19.
8
Yan Shaodang 嚴紹璗 ed., Riben cang Songren wenji shanben gouchen 日本藏宋人文集善本鉤沉
(Inquiries into the Rare Books of Song Dynasty Literati’s Corps Preserved in Japan) (Hangzhou:
Hangzhou daxue chubanshe 1996), pp. 1-2; Ôba Ôsamu 大庭修, Qi Yinping 戚印平 tr., Jianghu
7

shidai Zhongguo dianji liubo Riben zhi yanjiu 江戶時代中國典籍流播日本之研究 (A Study of theDissemination of Chinese Texts in Tokugawa Japan) (Hangzhou: Hangzhou daxue chubanshe,1998).
5

to try it out at due intervals,” (Analects, 1:1) etc.
All such problems constitute a series of questions commonly shared by East
Asian Confucians. Consequently, a Confucian system of thought with East Asiancharacteristics came to emerge and exhibit a sort of “family resemblance,” which canbe aptly called “East Asian Confucianisms.” Such Confucian family of ideas andproblems conveys the sense that East Asian Confucianisms form a system of thought.

(b) “East Asian Confucianisms” as the Method of the Humanities
Now, such characterization of the genetic process of East Asian Confucianisms
as the ripples spreading in every direction, exhibiting a simultaneous developmental
and systematic comprehensiveness, would easily leave the reader an impression that
Chinese Confucianism is the core or center, whereas Confucian ideas in other places
were peripheral.
Recently, Koyasu Nobukuni (子安宣邦, 1933-) cast doubts on such impressionof upholding Chinese Confucianism as the only center of the East Asian
Confucianisms as a whole. As far as he was concerned, the impression would initiatea political center-periphery dichotomy and cultural origin-reception tension. Such aview amounts to an intellectual version of pre-modern Chinese imperialism.9 The
ripple effect sends forth Chinese cultural chauvinism.
Koyasu’s doubts are right on the mark. The monistic approach of taking China’s
Confucian tradition as the central culture would be to adopt the civilized-barbaric
distinction embraced by the Chinese hegemony as the basis of our developmental
explanation. Isn’t it little wonder then that Tsuda would despise China with

9

Koyasu Nobukuni, Ajiawa Dô Katarare tekidaka — Kindai Nihon no oriuentarizumu ― 「アジア」ほどうかたられてきたか ― 近代日本のオリエンタリズム (How can Asia be Spoken:
Orientalism in Modern Japan) (Tokyo: Fujihara shoden, 2003), pp. 171-198.
6

Japan-centrism and Japanese chauvinism in return?
China’s cultural egocentrism was deep-rooted; its imperial rulers thought they
were the center of the world and looked down on the surrounding peoples as they
were barbarians. According to Wang Ermin (王爾敏, 1927-), the term “zhongguo” (中國, central kingdom) was used in several senses in the pre-Qin classics, usually
involving a center-border outlook, thus suggesting that the Chinese monistic cultural
outlook was formed very early indeed.10 However, as I have argued elsewhere,11 theJapanese intellectuals form the seventeenth century have taken “Zhongguo” to refer totheir own homeland, Japan, because they felt that Japan had adopted Confucius’ Way
and the authentic spirit in the Annals of the Spring and Autumn more adequately than
had China. Moreover, the idea of “Zhongguo” in the contemporary Taiwanese
worldview can be divided into cultural China and political China. While these twoelements are not completely cut off from each other, there is a degree of tension andstruggle between them.
This monistic political-cultural outlook12 should have collapsed in history withthe downfall of the Qing Empire (1644-1911). The new cultural-political orders of thetwenty-first century are formed with the strong affirmation of cultural pluralism, on
which “East Asian Confucianisms” is espoused in Taiwan today. Acknowledging thevaried Confucian traditions in East Asia, as manifested in China, Korea, Japan and

10

Wang Ermin 王爾敏, “‘Zhongguo’ mingcheng suoyuan jiqi jindai quanshi” 「中國」名稱溯源及其近代詮釋 (The Origin of “China” and Its Interpretation in Modern Times), in Zhongguo jindai

sixiang shilun 中國近代思想史論 (Essays on Modern Chinese Intellectual History) (Taipei:
Xuesheng shuju, 1977), pp. 441-480. Cf. Michael Loewe, “The Heritage Left to the Empires,” inMichael Loewe, Edward I. Shaughnessy eds., The Cambridge History of Ancient China, From theOrigins of Civilization to 221 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 992-995.
11
Chun-chieh Huang, “The Idea of ‘Zhongguo’ and Its Transformation in Early Modern Japan andContemporary Taiwan,” Nihon Kanbungaku Kenkyû 日本漢文學研究, no. 2 (2007, March), pp.
398-408.
12
John K. Fairbank ed., The Chinese World Order (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1968), p. 1; Lien-sheng Yang, “Historical Notes on the Chinese World Order,” in Fairbank ed., op.
cit., p. 20.
7

Taiwan, we see that Confucianism in each place expresses its own particular strengths,
weaknesses, and its rich multi-faceted contents.
For all that, while each regional version of Confucianism responds to the specificfeatures and requirements of that locale, there is a clear commonality within theirvisible diversities. That is, Confucians of different places pay the same respect toConfucius (551-479 B.C.) and Mencius (371-289 B.C.) as their spiritual forebears,
while their specific needs and requirements respond to the classics, thereby opened a
new vista of Confucian interpretation, constructing localized Confucianism reflectiveof each region’s specific ethos. In short, the significant commonality of East Asian
Confucianisms is the “plurality.” As such, the common framework of the Confucian
tradition does not foster cultural monism but provides a prism to highlight the richdiversity of East Asian cultures.
Viewing “East Asian Confucianisms” in this way makes the study of “East Asian
Confucianisms” an example of “method”13 of studying the humanities. Against thetrap of assuming China as the “center” when treating “East Asian Confucianisms” ashistorical reality, taking “East Asian Confucianisms” as a “method” illuminates
concrete processes whereby the alleged “peripheral” areas form their respective
versions of Confucianism.
“Confucianism” interpreted in this sense becomes a parameter for the formationof the subjectivities of each and every East Asian region. What is important to observeis the “process” of such specific construction of subjectivity, be it Japan or Korea, not“authenticity” or “orthodoxy” of specific regional Confucianism. “East Asian
Confucianisms” are not something ready-cast, nor a frame of thought that exists

13

For reflections on Asia as “method,” see Takeuchi Yoshimi 竹內好 (1910-1977), “Hôho toshite
no Ajia” 方法としてのアジア (Asia as Method), in Takeuchi Yoshimi Zenshû 竹內好全集(Complete Works of Takeuchi Yoshimi) (Tokyo: Chikuma shobô, 1981), Vol. 5, esp. pp. 114-115.
8

above the concrete process of development of Confucianism in Korea, Japan andTaiwan, but exists only in the interactive formations among East Asian regions,
including China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

3. The Problematiques

The discussion on the problematiques follows the foregoing consideration that
East Asian Confucianisms reflect the diversity of regional characteristics, and that its
comprehensive integrity is not a mechanical assemblage of regional Confucian
traditions, but some overall family congeniality in thinking. In the third part of thearticle, I would discuss the legitimized field of “East Asian Confucianisms,” which
opens up new inquiries with new significance.
One repercussion of the novel vista mentioned above is Chinese Confucianism
itself. If we consider the study of Confucianism only in the context of Chinese history,
even though we register the changes and differences among dynasties and movements,
such as Han Confucianism, Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, Qing Confucianism, etc.,
our view would have remained filtered through the official examination system and its
related educational channels. “Chinese Confucianism” would have remained closely
tied to the Chinese imperial order, which played as the principal platform of its
dissemination.
Such Confucian values under Chinese imperial order could not have produced
tensions between political and cultural identity. On the contrary, traditionally China
strongly promulgated sociopolitical monism, to the extent that the orientations of the9value themselves exhibited a high degree of uniformity.14 And it was partly resulted
from the influence of the overall imperial monism that the political and cultural
identity remained fused as one through two thousand years of Chinese imperial
dynasties.
Even exiled Chinese Confucians show such unity of political and cultural
identities. Zhu Shunshui (朱舜水, 1600-1682), a scholar of the late-Ming andearly-Qing, is a prime example. At the fall of Ming and the establishment of Qing
Empire, Zhu left for Japan in 1659, where he plotted to seek military support torestore Ming dynasty. With the recognition of the Ming reign as the political identity,
Zhu supposed that political authority was rooted in culture. He wrote to a Japanese
friend, lamenting “recently, the Chinese empire fell because they had abandoned theteachings of the sages and rushed to open the competitive road of profit.”15
Staying in Japan for twenty two years, his political and cultural identities
remained fused as one, often lamenting, “the only place for Confucius and Yan Hui
was China, Yao and Shun were not born in remote lands;”16 “China was the cultural
center and Japan a border region, and the Japanese had never seen a Yao or Shunbecause they did not cultivate the Way.”17 Zhu was not an exception but a common
example representing the Chinese attitude, evinced throughout Chinese history.
However, once we expand our vision to the whole East Asia beyond China
proper, our studies of Confucianism will be liberated from Chinese regionalism, andinfused with new vitality of greater breadth and diversity. Set in the larger context of
14

Cf. Donald W. Treagold, The West in Russia and China: Religious and Secular Thought in Modern
Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), Vol. 1, p. xxii.

15

Zhu Shunshui 朱舜水, Zhu Shunshui ji 朱舜水集 (Collected Essays of Zhu Shunshui) (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1990), Vol. 7, p. 182. Cf. my “Lun dongya yimin ruzhe di liangge liangnanshi 論東亞遺民儒者的兩個兩難式” (On the Two Predicaments in Confucianism as Formulated by the
Leftover Subjects in East Asia), Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (June, 2006),
pp. 61-80.
16Ibid., p. 170.
17
Ibid., p. 170.
10

East Asia, the study of Confucianism gives rise to many new topics. It is up to us to
explore the terrain and choose the most promising ones and to find new wine in therenovated bottles of time-honored Confucianism. Among all the new themes, the twothat merit our studies the most are to be discussed in the following.
(1) Tensions and Fusions between Chinese Confucian Values and SpecificCharacteristics of Other Regions in East Asia:

Appearing in the Shandong peninsula of China two millennia ago, Confucianism
was merely a local wisdom. Yet, as it developed over the centuries, Confucianism had
molded a value system, which was eventually accepted all over East Asia. In the eyesof East Asian Confucians outside China, “China” was a great inevitable “Other.”
When examining the overall historical rise and development of Confucianism, one
might find many Confucian notions, such as the distinction between Chinese andbarbarian (huayi zhibian 華夷之辨), zhong (忠, loyalty, doing one’s best) and xiao (孝,filial piety), strongly reflected specific features of Chinese culture, intimately
connected with its agrarian economy, clan society, and authoritarian order. All of thesenotions were deeply rooted in and colored by Chinese culture.
It is no surprising that, as they were spread outside China to Korea and Japan,
tensions appeared due to the difference of regional conditions. For example,
Confucianism had to be adjusted to fit into Japan’s imperial feudal conditions, whichmeans the assimilation of Confucianism was to localize foreign ideas in Japanese soil.
This sort of tension caused Confucian ideas to change into something else, andtwisted it into diverse versions of East Asian Confucianisms. Two examples reveal thediversity of Confucianism in East Asia.
First, since Song dynasty (960-1279), Confucius and Mencius were given equal
prominence in China. Mencius-tablet was placed in the Confucius Temple as the11

“Second Sage.” As Confucianism spread to Japan, the situation was modified to suit
Japan. Some passages in Confucius’ Analects were given new interpretations.
Confucius considered (Analects, 9:14) settling among the “Nine Barbaric Tribes (Jiuyi
九夷) of the east”; Hayashi Razan (林羅山, 1583-1657), a Zhu Xi scholar of early
Tokugawa Japan, thought “Jiuyi” to refer to Japan even as Japan was the country ofgentlemen.18 Itô Jinsai (伊藤仁齋, 1627-1705) drew on the general meaning of the“Sage mind” and broke down the barrier erected by Confucius’ Chinese-barbarian
distinction and broadened the meaning of this passage.19
Because Mencius’ revolutionary political thought clashed with Tokugawa
feudalism, many Japanese Confucians attacked Mencius. As early as in theseventeenth century, Ogyû Sorai ( 荻 生 徂 徠 , 1666-1728) proposed to remove
Mencius-tablet, one of the four sages and ten wise men, from the Confucian Temple,
for Mencius was given to dispute.20 Sorai’s follower Dazai Shundai (太宰春台,
1680-1747) wrote two tracts criticizing Mencius. Because of the Sorai school’s
excessive critique of Mencius, scholars of Itô Jinsai’s school were compelled tolaunch a critique of their Mencius-criticisms. The debate between the two schools
continued into the nineteenth century.21 Such debate illustrates the basic tension
between Mencius’ political thought and the sociopolitical circumstances in Tokugawa
Japan.

Hayashi Razan 林羅山, Hayashi Razan Bumsho 林羅山文集 (Literary Corps of Hayashi Razan)(Kyoto: Kyoto shisekikai, 1979), Vol. 36, pp. 408-409.
19
Itô Jinsai 伊藤仁齋, Rongo Kogi 論語古義 (Classical Meanings in the Analects), in Seiki Giichirô18

關儀一郎 ed., Nihon Meika Shishò-Chûshaku Zenshu 日本名家四書註釋全書 (Complete Worksof the Annotations of the Renowned Japanese Scholars) (Tokyo: Hô Shuppan, 1973), Vol. 3, p. 32。
20Ogyû Sorai 荻生徂徠, Tenyen Ippitsu 蘐園一筆 (First Corps of Tenyen), Nihon Julin Shôsho 日
本儒林叢書 (Series on Japanese Confucianism), Vol. 1, pp. 1-3.

21

Cf. Zhang Kunjiang 張崑將, Riben Dechuan shidai guxuepai zhi wangdao zhengzhilun 日本德川
時代古學派之王道政治論 (Theory of Kingly Governance of the Classical School of Japanese
Confucianism in Tokugawa Era) (Taipei: Taida chuban zhongxin, 2005), Ch. 5.
12Secondly, some ideas in Chinese Confucianism were enclothed with newinterpretations when they reached Japan and Korea. The meaning of such core ideas
as “gong” (公, public, fair), “si” (私, personal, private), “xin” (心, mind-heart) went
through radical changes in Japan. “Xin” in Japan means “spontaneous,” “natural,”“unified,” and “receptive medium,” while in China, it has a “cosmic character,” an“empty” “lively” entity full of ontological significance.22 The expression “cosmic
character” refers to the heart-mind’s creative activity in and of the world, involving
producing and living together, feeling and responding to one another, and theinteractive relations that gives rise to natural law.
As for the Japanese interpretations of “zhong” and “xiao,” two basic Confucian
notions, are entirely different from the Chinese ones. Zhang Kunjiang (張崑將, 1967-)
recently researched on the meaning of “xiao” for the Wang Yangming(王陽明,
1472-1528) school from Nakae Tôju (中江藤樹, 1608-1648) to Ôhashi Chûsai (大塩中齋, 1793-1837), and the connotation of “zhong” for the militarist school from
Yamaga Sokô (山鹿素行, 1622-1685) to Yoshida Shôyin (吉田松陰, 1830-1859).
Zhang discovered that in Japan “zhong” and “xiao” were both influenced by the local
Shintoism, the Japanese indigenous thought.23
These examples serve to illustrate the diversity of Confucianisms in East Asia.
Far from the uniform appearance of Chinese Confucianism, the rich diversity isrooted in the various local milieus and specific ethnic cultures of those regions.

(2) The History of East Asian Confucianisms exhibits Duality of Cultural and

Mizoguchi Yûzô 溝口雄三, Chugoku no kô do si 中國の公と私 (The “Public” and the “Private”
in China) (Tokyo: Genbun shuppan, 1995).
23
Zhang Kunjiang, Dechuan Riben “Zhong” “Xiao” gainian di xingcheng yu fazhan 德川日本「忠」
22「孝」概念的形成與發展 (The Formation and Development of the Notions of “Loyalty” and“Filial Piety” in Tokugawa Japan) (Taipei: Taida chuban zhongxin, 2005).
13

Political Identities among Non-Chinese Confucians.

In China, all Confucians share the same values, and the Han people establishedorthodox rule to fuse political and cultural identities into one. Yet in the cases of other
East Asian countries, Confucians admired Confucius and Mencius, absorbed theConfucian values, took Confucianism into their cultural identity, and were subject toanother political identity.
For instance, in the sixteenth century, Hayashi Razan, follower of Zhu Xi, said:“Japan’s flourishing culture can rival that of China.” 24 The early Tokugawa
Confucian and Militarist, Yamaga Sogô, compared Japan with China and asserted theformer was better.25 Japanese Confucians considered Chinese rules foreign, and neverfused their Chinese cultural identity with Japanese political identity.
In sum, these two new areas in the study of East Asian Confucianisms show how
the study can bring in new questions to illuminate traditional Chinese Confucianism,
introduce new research methods, thereby pour new wine into old renovated bottles,
and conduce to new researches.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have argued that studies of East Asian Confucianisms are a
new field in the age of globalization of the twenty-first century, not to find in Asia a“Reflexive Orientalism” to counteract Western studies, much less a self-absorbed andself-assertive “national learning” or guoxue 國 學 . Instead, “East Asian

24

Hayashi Rozan, Hayashi Rozan Zenshu, Vol. 48, p. 560.

25

Yamaga Sôgo, Chûcho Jijitsu 中朝事實 in Hirose Naruse 廣瀨豐 ed., Yamaga Sôgo Zenshû 山
鹿素行全集 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoden, 1942), Vol. 13, p. 369.
14

Confucianisms” is a sui generis and self-formed systematic study. It is not just amechanical piecemeal assemblage of regional versions of Chinese, Japanese, Korean
and Vietnamese Confucianism, but, as Confucians in each of these places recite andare baptized in the same classics, they aspire to become the sages who transcend
regional limitations into Confucian core values. This common core of Confucianism
forms a system of thought, without the stigmas of center-border or means-end
discriminations. “East Asian Confucianisms” is a field of study that rids us of thevestiges of boundaries and limitations that still remain in the present time and takes in
East Asia as a whole. In the various traditions of East Asian Confucianisms there exist
important spiritual resources to facilitate dialogues among world civilizations in ourpresent era of globalization.

15