The Center for the Contemporary Study of East Asian Classics and Critical Confucianism (CCECC) International Conference, Co-organized by City University of Hong Kong's Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy (CEACOP)
Statement of Purpose
This conference explores what kind of discussion is being conducted in contemporary Korea and China with the keyword of meritocracy, and critically reflects on why the Confucian tradition is simultaneously understood as a philosophical resource.
The contexts of the recent debates on meritocracy in China and Korea are different. In developing the so-called “China Model,” several Chinese scholars insist that greater political power to make public decisions should be delegated to political elites who have both knowledge and strong moral characters. That is, the right to participate in politics should be differently assigned to people in accordance with their moral and political capacities. On the other hand, in recent years in Korea, competency is often presented as a criterion of fairness, and effort is understood as the basis of individual achievements. However, it has been pointed out that the blind emphasis on effort actually aggravates social inequality. In other words, sufficient attention has not been paid to various social structures such as inequalities in income and wealth, which also result in difference in individual achievements. As such, the debates on meritocracy in China and Korea form quite different terrains of discussion. One side is on political meritocracy, while the other is on social meritocracy.
Are the two debates really different, with only the same keyword? The belief that this is not the case is the starting point of this conference. The debates commonly make us ponder what kind of merit or ability we should pay attention to in the context of the global socio-political world. More interestingly, it is notable that the Confucian tradition is simultaneously summoned either as an philosophical or ideological resource or as the culprit of the problem, in both debates. This conference compares the topography of these two debates, and further examines exactly how the Confucian tradition has been understood in each discussion.
The contexts of the recent debates on meritocracy in China and Korea are different. In developing the so-called “China Model,” several Chinese scholars insist that greater political power to make public decisions should be delegated to political elites who have both knowledge and strong moral characters. That is, the right to participate in politics should be differently assigned to people in accordance with their moral and political capacities. On the other hand, in recent years in Korea, competency is often presented as a criterion of fairness, and effort is understood as the basis of individual achievements. However, it has been pointed out that the blind emphasis on effort actually aggravates social inequality. In other words, sufficient attention has not been paid to various social structures such as inequalities in income and wealth, which also result in difference in individual achievements. As such, the debates on meritocracy in China and Korea form quite different terrains of discussion. One side is on political meritocracy, while the other is on social meritocracy.
Are the two debates really different, with only the same keyword? The belief that this is not the case is the starting point of this conference. The debates commonly make us ponder what kind of merit or ability we should pay attention to in the context of the global socio-political world. More interestingly, it is notable that the Confucian tradition is simultaneously summoned either as an philosophical or ideological resource or as the culprit of the problem, in both debates. This conference compares the topography of these two debates, and further examines exactly how the Confucian tradition has been understood in each discussion.
Location
25-2 SUNGKYUNKWAN-RO, JONGNO-GU, SEOUL (03063), KOREA
Organizers
Sungmoon Kim
Conference Organizer
Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs
Director (CEACOP), Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy
Associate Dean (CLASS), College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Link: scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/persons/sungmoon-kim(10a18ccf-ef32-4a53-a8dc-f4d7a8b0b684).html
Conference Organizer
Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs
Director (CEACOP), Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy
Associate Dean (CLASS), College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Link: scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/persons/sungmoon-kim(10a18ccf-ef32-4a53-a8dc-f4d7a8b0b684).html
Doil Kim
Conference Organizer
Associate Professor, Department of Confucian Studies, Eastern Philosophy, and Korean Philosophy
Director, Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
Director, Center for the Contemporary Study of East Asian Classics and Critical Confucianism (CCECC)
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea
Link: https://swb.skku.edu/ccecc-en/intro/people01.do
Conference Organizer
Associate Professor, Department of Confucian Studies, Eastern Philosophy, and Korean Philosophy
Director, Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
Director, Center for the Contemporary Study of East Asian Classics and Critical Confucianism (CCECC)
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea
Link: https://swb.skku.edu/ccecc-en/intro/people01.do
Sponsors
|
|
|
|
The Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture
성균관대학교 동아시아학술원 유교문화연구소 | 成均館大學敎 東亞學術院 儒敎文化硏究所
(03063) 서울특별시 종로구 성균관로 25-2 성균관대학교 600주년기념관 4층 성균관대학교 유교문화연구소
 |
||
|
|
||
|
City University of Hong Kong's Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy (CEACOP)
Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy (CEACOP), Rm 5522, Li Dak Sum Building, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
