The Battlefield of Two Paradigms

Dejima · Kim Jae-ho · Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University

Introduction

We are currently facing a power struggle between the United States and China. Since the Obama administration declared the 'Pivot to Asia' strategy, the U.S. has attempted to strengthen its influence in the Asian region. Under the Trump administration, this expanded into the 'Indo-Pacific Strategy,' intensifying friction with China not only militarily but also in many other areas, including economics and human rights. Furthermore, the recently inaugurated Biden administration is also continuing its assertive stance towards China. This conflict differs from the transition of power from Great Britain to the United States. While the transition from Britain to the U.S. occurred within the same paradigm of Western values, the current U.S.-China conflict is not merely a power struggle but also a clash of paradigms: the Western value-based paradigm led by the U.S. and represented by democracy, and China's paradigm, which seeks to build its own international order in opposition to it. Amidst this clash of paradigms, Korea finds itself in a dilemma, caught between its identity as an ally of the U.S. and a nation belonging to the Western paradigm, and its reality as a neighboring country heavily influenced by China. There is a nation that has wisely navigated a similar situation: Japan. In the past, Japan belonged to the Sinocentric tributary order. However, through exchanges with Western nations, it learned from both Eastern and Western orders and successfully transitioned to the Western order. Therefore, Japan's case of successfully transitioning paradigms between the Sinocentric and Western paradigms can serve as an important reference for how contemporary Korea should navigate the U.S.-China paradigm conflict it faces today. To this end, we will examine Dejima (出島), the contact point between Western civilization and Japan.

Background of Dejima's Establishment

The first place where Japan came into contact with the West was not Dejima, but Tanegashima, south of Kagoshima. Subsequently, missionaries and Portuguese merchants traded with Japan, using Hirado and Nagasaki as bases. However, concerned about the spread of Christianity, Japan, in 1636, created a restricted area on a small peninsula, connected only by a bridge, named it Dejima, and attempted to block contact between Japanese and Westerners by strictly controlling entry and exit. In 1637, a large-scale popular uprising known as the Shimabara Rebellion occurred due to excessive taxes and the persecution of Christians. Citing the involvement of Japanese Christians in this rebellion and the issue of Portuguese proselytization, the Shogunate expelled Portuguese merchants and relocated Dutch merchants from Hirado to this area for control. Dutch people were generally not allowed to leave Dejima, except in special circumstances, and Japanese people were also prohibited from entering Dejima without permission. Even interpreters were exclusively selected from Japanese interpreters who had studied Dutch, and this position was hereditary, prohibiting others from studying Dutch. This relationship dissolved after the Meiji Restoration when Dejima lost its function as a trading post. Until then, Japan pursued a policy of national isolation (鎖國), officially interacting only with China, Joseon, and the Netherlands. Although Dejima was established partly to control Western learning, it also served as a window for transmitting Western information to Japan. The Western information introduced through Dejima spread in Japan under the name Rangaku (蘭学), or Dutch Learning.

The Existing Sinocentric Paradigm

At that time, Japan was part of the Sinocentric tributary order system. Within this existing order, China was the center of thought, culture, knowledge, and norms for Japan, Joseon, and other neighboring countries. Although Japan existed as a peripheral state in the Sinocentric order, sometimes with periods of indirect connection to China, unlike Joseon or Vietnam which were continuously linked through direct tributary relationships, it remained an integral part of the East Asian Sinocentric world by being indirectly connected through the Ryukyu Kingdom and Joseon (Kim Ki-hyeok 2002, 66). Japan also read and studied the Chinese classics, the Four Books and Five Classics, written in Chinese, and studied Chinese history.

This was also the case in the field of medicine. Until 1867, medical books reprinted in Japan included 315 Chinese titles and 7 Joseon titles, covering the entire spectrum from basic to clinical medicine. The fact that many of these were printed with the direct involvement of the Edo Shogunate, not just by private individuals, indicates that Japanese medicine was directly influenced by Chinese traditional medicine (Makoto Yanagida 2010, 156). However, through continuous exchange with the West via Dejima, Japan gradually began to show signs of moving away from China's sphere of influence. 2. The Battlefield of Two Paradigms_Dejima

Introduction of a New Paradigm

Portuguese and Dutch merchants introduced not only their trade goods but also religion, culture, and knowledge into Japan. Western knowledge, known as Rangaku, attracted those who wished to learn it to Nagasaki, where Dejima was located, thus making Nagasaki the center of Rangaku.

One of the events considered the beginning of Rangaku is the publication of the 'Kaitai Shinsho' (解体新書) by Sugita Genpaku (杉田玄白), Maeno Ryotaku (前野良澤), and Nakagawa Jun'an (中川淳庵). Sugita Genpaku and Maeno Ryotaku were physician friends from the Obama and Nakatsu domains, respectively, and both practiced medicine in the 'Oranda-ryu' (Dutch style) influenced by Dutch medicine. Through different channels, they obtained a book titled 'Tabulae Anatomicae' written by Johan Adam Kulmus. Genpaku, upon reading this book, was astonished by its content, which differed greatly from the medicine he had learned and practiced. The book described the human body entirely differently from the 'five viscera and six bowels' and anatomical diagrams discussed in traditional Chinese medicine (Lee Jong-gak, 73).

Then, in 1771, to directly verify which was correct between traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine, they observed a public dissection of a condemned criminal called 'Fuwake' (腑分) along with Maeno Ryotaku and Nakagawa Jun'an. When they asked the ninety-year-old man performing the dissection about the various organs, he replied that although he did not know the names of the organs, the same organs were always in the same position, and no physician who had observed the dissection before had ever asked such questions. Genpaku and Ryotaro were amazed by the accuracy of the book as they compared the bones and organs of the executed criminal with the anatomical diagrams in 'Tabulae Anatomicae.' Of course, they were not the first physicians to observe a 'Fuwake.' (Lee Jong-gak, 225)

Seventeen years before their observation, in 1754, Yamawaki Tōyō, who held the second-highest position in the Shogunate's officialdom, was the first to observe it. He published a book titled 'Zōshi' (臓志), in which he argued for the first time that the concept of the five viscera and six bowels in Chinese medicine differed from reality and that Western books were more accurate. Physicians Okada Yōsen and Fujimoto Ripsen also observed it multiple times, but they were limited to questioning whether the anatomy of Chinese and Westerners differed, without progressing further.

Meanwhile, after observing the 'Fuwake,' Genpaku felt fortunate to have been able to directly verify the truth between traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. At the same time, he felt ashamed of practicing medicine without knowing the structure of the human body. He proposed translating 'Tabulae Anatomicae,' believing that if people accurately understood the structure of the human body, it would aid in treatment. 2. The Battlefield of Two Paradigms_Dejima

Three years after the commencement of the translation of 'Anatomical Tables,' the 'Anatomical Tables' were finally completed in 1774, under the title 'Kaibō Shinsyo.' However, the prior prohibition of 'Hongmodam' made them consider the potential dangers that could arise after publication. 'Hongmodam' was a book compiled in 1765, containing Dutch customs and stories, and its author was reprimanded simply because it contained alphabetic characters. Fearing that such an incident might occur upon the publication of 'Kaibō Shinsyo,' Sugita Genpaku proposed two methods. First, prior to the book's publication, a portion of 'Kaibō Shinsyo' would be released under the title 'Kaibō Yakuzu' to gauge public reaction. Second, the book would be presented to the Shogun to receive the bakufu's protection. After confirming that there was no significant backlash from the bakufu or the public, 'Kaibō Shinsyo' was published. While it was welcomed by Dutch scholars, it provoked strong opposition from traditional Korean medicine practitioners.

Clash of Two Paradigms and Genpaku's Choice

When 『Anatomical Text』 was published, some people began to be amazed by the accuracy of Dutch medicine, but at the same time, it provoked strong opposition from traditional Korean medicine. Genpaku, anticipating this backlash, published a book titled 『Gwiuiyeon』 (狂醫之言) to refute their claims. Through this, Genpaku sharply criticized traditional Korean medicine and explained the reasons why Western medicine is correct in the form of a dialogue. This dialogue does not merely compare traditional Korean medicine and Western medicine; it shows that Genpaku has broken away from the traditional Hua-Yi concept by having the two speakers use different language and word choices when viewing the world. In 『Gwiuiyeon』, 'Friend,' representing traditional Korean medicine, states that 'Zhonghua' is the land of sages and wise men and the center of civilization, and that they have treated diseases for thousands of years with the medicine they propagated, while Sugita brought low-quality knowledge from a barbarian country on the periphery of the world. In response, Genpaku argues that there is no center to the world, that 'Jing' is merely a small country in the eastern corner, that each region adapts to its environment, and that 'Dao' exists in every region, thus denying the China-centric Hua-Yi system. Subsequently, in response to 'Friend's' argument that many people have been sufficiently treated by traditional Korean medicine so far, Genpaku says that although humans may not know the taste of the insects that birds eat, they can still make food for birds, implying that it is possible to achieve some level of healing even without knowing the root cause. Genpaku criticizes traditional Korean medicine as being 'like placing a pot made of bronze far away and guessing what is inside it,' noting that one does not know whether the pot is hot because it contains hot water or because it is heated by a brazier, but merely discusses the interior while knowing only that the pot is hot. At the same time, he argues that Western medicine identifies the root cause that creates a certain condition and acts directly on that cause, making it correct (Lee Ye-an 2016, 240). In other words, identifying the root cause of a disease is 'method' (法), and treating the disease is 'prescription' (方); Western medicine possesses both 'prescription' and 'method,' whereas traditional Korean medicine only has 'prescription.' In this dialogue, Genpaku disparagingly refers to traditional Korean medicine as 'Hanseol' (漢説) and China as 'Jing' (支那), while praising Western medical texts as 'Nanseo' (蘭書). Finally, at the end of 『Gwiuiyeon』, the book concludes with a resolution not to yield even if outnumbered by those who follow Chinese medicine.

The departure from this Sinocentric world is not solely derived from the content of the book. Until then, countries within the Sinocentric order, including Japan, had understood concepts through the characters and words created by China, as Japan began to refer to its capital Kyoto as ‘Kyō’ (京) and the surrounding region as Kinki (近‘畿’) when China started to call its capital ‘Kyō’ (京) and its surrounding area ‘Ki’ (畿). However, while translating the ‘Deconstruction of the New Book,’ Genpaku felt the necessity for new words and created terms such as ‘nerve,’ ‘cartilage,’ and ‘artery,’ which are still in use today. This marks a shift in Japan's position from one of accepting China's superior civilization to one of creating its own.

Paradigm Shift

Marked by the translation of 'Kaitai Shinsho,' a boom in translating Dutch books occurred in Japan. This change had the effect of spreading Rangaku to a wider audience, leading to the recognition of Rangaku's value even within Confucianism, which was the academic mainstream at the time.

The Japanese Confucian scholar Taki Kakudai (瀧鶴臺), in a meeting with the Joseon envoy, stated that not only the 'Dao' of China is precious, but even the 'Dao' of barbarians is not insignificant, demonstrating a departure from Sinocentric thought (Koo Ji-hyun 2007, 287). Furthermore, Hirata Atsutane, a scholar of Japanese national studies, expressed an open attitude, stating that Han learning is just one among countless fields of study, and Rangaku is a practical discipline. In other words, even within Confucianism, which was a Chinese ideology, there was a move away from Sinocentric thinking.

Forty-one years after the publication of 『Anatomical Atlas』, in 1815, Sugita Gempaku published his memoir 『The Origins of Dutch Learning』 (Rangaku Shi-shi), detailing the translation process of 『Anatomical Atlas』. This book gained significant attention much later, in 1869, when it was rediscovered and re-evaluated by Fukuzawa Yukichi, who laid the intellectual foundation for Japan's modernization. After reading this book, he advocated for the theory of escaping Asia ('Datsu-A Ron'). His argument for breaking away from the Asian order and aspiring to the European order could be seen as originating from the publication of 『The Origins of Dutch Learning』, which marked the beginning of the separation from the Sinocentric order.

Conclusion

Examining the process of Sugita Genpaku's translation and publication of 'Kaitai Shinsho' and its reception by the public reminded me of Thomas Kuhn's paradigm theory. This is because Japan, previously part of the Sinocentric paradigm, encountered the West, compared their knowledge and their own knowledge under the Sinocentric worldview with reality, and then broke away from the existing Sinocentric worldview to embrace Western concepts that could explain more. Sugita Genpaku was neither the first person to discover that the human body structure described in traditional Chinese medicine differed from reality, nor the first person to learn Western medicine. His father was also a Dutch-style physician, and he learned from reading Yamawaki Tōyō's 'Zōshi' that the human body structure in traditional Chinese medicine differed from reality. Observers of 'Fuwake' also existed previously. However, they merely attempted to explain Western medicine within the framework of the traditional Chinese medicine paradigm. Despite confirming the greater accuracy of Western anatomical diagrams, they treated this as a mere anomaly within the existing paradigm, raising questions like 'Do Chinese people have different anatomy?' But Genpaku succeeded not only in explaining these anomalies through the new paradigm of Western medicine but also in initiating a departure from the Sinocentric paradigm beyond medicine. Thomas Kuhn stated that the transition from an old paradigm to a new one does not necessarily lead to absolute truth. If so, it implies that the current dominant global paradigm, the Western order, could also be replaced by another paradigm that was once considered inferior. Currently, the world is greatly affected by the coronavirus. In the early stages, when cases surged in Asia, Western media claimed that Western countries, with their advanced, enlightened, and democratic populations, had low infection rates. However, as time went on and infection rates surged in Western countries while stabilizing in Asian countries, Western media began to attribute the stable numbers in Asian countries to their adherence to privacy and their familiarity with control, attempting to explain these anomalies within their own paradigm.

In my personal opinion, it is too early to decide which paradigm to choose, but it is necessary to understand the epistemologies of both sides from now on. We know from past experience that comparing, analyzing, and choosing when the time for decision arrives is too late. Fortunately, we are not entirely unfamiliar with the new Chinese paradigm that challenges the existing Western paradigm. 2. The Battlefield of Two Paradigms_Dejima Therefore, we have an advantage in starting from a more advanced position than other countries. However, like Yamawaki Tōyō, Okada Yōsen, or Fujimoto Ripsen, we must not remain confined to the framework of the existing paradigm when faced with anomalies that cannot be perfectly explained by it. Instead, we must simultaneously attempt to analyze these anomalies through new paradigms and actively choose a more accurate paradigm when the time for paradigm transition arrives. References Koo Ji-hyun. 2007. “A Study on the Development of Exchange Between Korean and Japanese Literati Through Written Conversations -

Focusing on Akamaseki.” Dongbang Hakji: 138-269.

Kim Ki-hyeok. 2002. “East Asian International Relations in the Mid-19th Century.” New History of Korea

37. The National Institute of Korean History.

Sugita Genpaku et al. 2014. Kaitai Shinsho. Translated by Kim Seong-soo. Paju: Hangilsa. Lee Ye-an. 2016. “Sugita Genpaku (杉田玄白), Kōi Shi Gen (狂醫之言).” Vol. 17

No.: 223-243.

Lee Jong-gak. 2013. Sugita Genpaku, Pioneer of Japanese Rangaku. Seoul:

Seohaemunjip.

Yeo In-seok, Hwang Sang-in. 1994. “The Introduction and Establishment of Anatomy in Japan.”

Journal of Korean Medical History, Vol. 3, No. 2: 218-229.

Makoto Yanagida. 2010. “Medicine in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam and Chinese Medical Texts.” Journal of the Japanese Society of Medical History

Vol. 56, No. 2: 151-159.

Leslie, C., Young, A., & American Anthropological Association.

Meeting 1985 : Washington, D.C.). 1992. Paths to Asian

Medical Knowledge / Edited by Charles Leslie and Allan

Young.

Beukers, & Beukers, H. 1991. Red-hair Medicine : Dutch-Japanese

Medical Relations / Edited by H. Beukers... [et Al.].