특집 : 다산의 경세학 ; 다산의 인간관계 범주구분과 사회인식 = Tasan`s Categorization of Human Relationships and His View of Human Society

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Tasan classified all sorts of human relationships into three main catergories: `Cheonsok(天屬),` `Euhap(義合),` and `Jokryu(族類).` Each of these three catergories can be elucidated on its own moral basis as follows. Firstly, `Cheonsok` denotes the relationships determined by the nature, i.e., the familial relationships or the relationships by blood. It consists of two kinds of sub-categories: (1) the filiation and (2) the brotherhood. This bipartite relationship is built up on the ethics of `hyo(孝: filial duty)` and `je(悌: brotherliness).` Since it implies the natural relationships, `cheonsok` can by no means be destroyed. For example, even if a son has been adopted as heir for the head family, his born relationship with his real parent still remains effective. Secondly, `Euhap` includes a variety of social relationships between a king and his subjects, between a husband and his wife, between a father-in-law and his daughter-in-law, between a lord and his slaves, between a man and his friends, and so forth. This variety is converged upon one basis in terms of the ethics of `chung(忠: loyalty),` `hwa(和: peace-making),` and `Shin(信: fidelity),` all of which can be summed into one word, `Eu(義: righteousness).` `Euhap` represents the man-made relationship. In case of that `Eu` is not guaranteed, `Euhap` could be canceled. The study has scrutinised Tasan`s argument about two relationships of `chung(忠).` One is the relationship between a king and his subjects, the other is the relationship between a lord and his slaves (or servants). In brief, Tasan has seen a doubling in the relationships which the king enjoys. On the one hand, the king stands in the relationship of `choensok` with his parent, which means the natural relationship like the filiation. The ethics of kingship shares a common place with the ethics of his subjects in respect to the filial duty. The king can not transgress over the social moral of filiation as well as his subjects can not do. On the other hand, since the king is respected as an agent of the heavenly God(上帝), he goes beyond the social ethics by executing his heavenly right as absolute monarch. The king should be respected as an agent who is committed by God to take care of his people. He serves the common wealth by managing well the land-properties, which are believed to have originally belonged to the divinity. Tasan refused the convention that a king is to his subjects what a parent is to their childeren. In his view, the monarch is no other than a political power. He does not rule over his people by means of the human moral, but by means of the law. Tasan`s standpoint about the issue of the relationship between a lord and his slaves can be elucidated by his acute criticism against the royal edict which was promulgated in 1731 in order to improve the social status of slaves. He criticized that the slack discipline slaves enjoy made the social integrity disturbed seriously. Furthermore, he argued for the recovery of the traditional slavery, which had been too highly dissolved in the beginning of the 19 century to be recovered. Finally, `Jokryu(族類)` denotes the relationship between officials and people. The basic ethics of `Jokryu` is that people must be obedient to officials. Tasan argued that, albeit the egalitarian nature of the human being, the life-time compells people to be subjected to great differences in their ability of practicing the ethics. Therefore, these differences made `noble man(君子)` distinguished from `ordinary people(小人),` which are inferior in sharp contrast with the former`s moral excellence. The `noble men` grow up to officials as is legitimated by his good personality, while `ordinary people` forms the basic strata of the society, since their self-interests made them engaged in the fields of agriculture, industry, and commerce. Tasan supported the standpoint that the state has to bestow special benefits to the noble family, that is, the officials and their posterity. The conventional Confucianism(性理學) has grasped the variety of the social relationships in the category of homogeneity and continuity. According to its understandings, every human relationship is controlled by every ethical principle, such as `hyo(孝),` `je(悌),` `chung(忠),` `shin(信),` `kong(恭),` and so on. Every principle reflects the human nature of `inn(仁).` The family, the society and the state cannot be distinguished in its own right, but it is only by the `inn(仁),` i.e., the original source of moral, that they are able to be integrated into the social order. This is no less than moralism or universalism. It is striking that Tasan rejected all these kinds of conventional thoughts. For Tasan, the society is divided into various modes according to the various categories, which have their own principles of ethics. Therefore, the social integrity (or order) has to be subjected to the artificial efforts to establish it firmly. Even though it is remarkable that a sort of conservatism colors darkly Tasan`s viewpoints about the social crisis happened in the beginning of the 19C, it is not to be, nevertheless, denied that Tasan reveals articulately the symptoms of the coming modern age with regard to the methodology of thought, which should be respected as the focal point of the research of the history of thoughts. This is the very conclusion of the study.