[Column] Too zealous about Confucius?

Debates represent the intellectual and cultural sensitivity of an age. Vociferous exchanges of pros and cons generally suggest the degree of interest in a particular subject. Naturally, the media are only doing their jobs when they focus on such debates, so long as they remain attentive to public opinion.

In its Feb. 6 issue, the Dong-a Ilbo newspaper touched off a debate on modern literature by inviting Prof. Kim Yun-shik and his former student Lee In-Hwa to engage in a ``conversation`` on the issue. The event was a good opportunity for the pair, a senior critic and a rising novelist, to air their views on the state of modern literature. Whether the differences in their views were so great as to warrant staging a debate is open to question. No direct clash of opinions occurred, despite their past disagreements. The two did not impress us as having voiced their views in an accurate manner. Rather, it seemed that the contents of their conversation suggested that both advocate a generational shift.

In contrast, more timely was the Feb. 12 debate on preschool education that was published in the Dong-a Ilbo as part of an in-depth series on the subject. The series aimed to explore issues related to the reform of preschool education. The friction between the two schools of thought on preschool learning and childcare presented in the printed argument seemed to warrant the debate`s inclusion in the paper. However, readers were rather disappointed because the series failed to go beyond posing general questions, thus overlooking the specific details of the two sides` arguments.

Sometimes debates provoke attempts at character assassination or other underhanded methods of putting across particular points of view. One such case is a debate involving Prof. Kim Yong-Ok, alias Dole, who is currently giving a series of televised lectures on the Analects of Confucius. Like most other major media organizations, the Dong-a Ilbo followed the series closely. Since Prof. Suh Ji-Moon of Korea University contributed an article critical of Kim to the Dong-a Ilbo on Feb. 14, more comments on Kim`s lectures have been pouring in.

The Feb. 22 issue carried Prof. Kim`s rebuttal of criticisms of his lectures and the Feb. 24 issue printed a review of a book railing at Kim, headed ``A Man Who Made Lao-tsu Laugh 2,`` which was written by Lee Kyung-Sook. Prof. Sung Tae-Yong of Konkook University wrote an overview of the debate on Kim`s lectures in the Feb. 26 issue and another essay reviewing the points of contention appeared on Feb. 28. On March 2 the daily contained a full page identifying Prof. Suh as the person who had stoked the polemics over the Analects lectures here.

Without a doubt, the exchanges over Prof. Kim`s lectures served to enlighten the public on the Chinese classic, also prompting many to ponder the issue of media power and the authority and intricacy of interpreting canonical works. But to what extent the excessive interest shown by the media helped unravel the questions remains in doubt. Sensational reports by the press on the lecture series smacked of the questionable methods used by the television network they denounced. In light of this, all those concerned should now do some soul-searching.

Shin Soo-Jeong, Literature critic