This book analyzes the reception of Leo Strauss and his political philosophy in Northeast Asia. By juxtaposing the central idea of Strauss’s political philosophy with the question of modernity, the contributors explore the eclectic adaptations of Strauss in Northeast Asian countries as a philosophical appropriation across cultures. Examining how Strauss’s philosophy was first introduced in Northeast Asia, the book sheds light on the similarities and differences in experiences, challenging the dominant approach which attributes various receptions of Strauss in Northeast Asia solely to sociopolitical circumstances. This book also seeks to move beyond a China-centric approach to investigate the possible transcultural appeals of Strauss’s political philosophy by exploring the cases of Japan and South Korea. Appealing to a wide network of scholars and practitioners in East Asia engaged in rethinking cultural particularities, this volume will be attractive to upper-level undergraduate students, graduate students, and advanced researchers in political philosophy, political theory, and Asian politics.

To form a truer portrait of Northeast Asian perspectives on modernity, this book presents a broad range of analyses from philosophical and political-philosophical scholars specializing in the region. The book considers the encounter between "Western" modernity and "Eastern" tradition not as a simple clash of cultures, but as a generative and hybridizing process of negotiation. It examines the concrete manifestations of modernity in various intellectual and political movements that attempted to radically restructure Northeast Asian societies. And through these situated perspectives, it rethinks and redefines the idea of "modernity" itself, challenging and presenting alternatives to Western-centric thinking on the topic. This book will be of particular interest to political philosophers, political theorists, comparative philosophers, regional specialists in East Asia, and all scholars grappling with the perplexities of global "modernity."

Analyzing the multifaceted receptions of Machiavelli from early modernity to the present history of Northeast Asia, this book explores a better East-West dialogue through which Machiavelli’s political philosophy can be appropriated properly in Northeast Asian practices. First, comparing the receptions of Machiavelli in Europe with the early introduction of his texts in Northeast Asia, it investigates what has been missing from the reception of his ideas in Northeast Asia. Second, examining the imperative issues which haven’t been construed appropriately even in recent reinterpretations of Machiavelli’s political philosophy in Northeast Asia, it searches for a direction of East-West dialogue through which Machiavelli’s political philosophy is not inordinately contextualized within the sociopolitical demands of Northeast Asian societies in accordance with time and place. Third, given the continuing interest in Machiavelli’s political realism, it examines the different conjunctions of his political realism with diverse traditional and contemporary political thinking in Northeast Asia. This book will be attractive to scholars in political philosophy, history, political theory, comparative philosophy, and area studies focused on East Asia, as well as scholars working in the field of comparative literature.

The first comprehensive effort to examine Strauss's astonishingly wide-ranging writings of the 1930s (some of which have only recently been made available to English-speaking readers, including several herein) with a view to their unifying theme of recovering classical political philosophy.

This book explores the contributions of East Asian traditions, particularly Buddhism and Daoism, to environmental philosophy in dialogue with European philosophy. It critically examines the conceptions of human responsibility toward nature and across time presented within these traditions. The volume rethinks human relationships to the natural world by focusing on three main themes: Daoist and Eurodaoist perspectives on nature, human responsibility toward nature, and Buddhist perspectives on life and nature. By way of discussing East Asian traditions and European thinkers, this collection reveals that the impact of humanity on the environment is shaped not only by distinctive modes of economic production, but also by cultural beliefs and practices. Representing a unique constellation of environmental and intercultural philosophy, the contributions present systematic approaches to the global need for cultivating environmental responsibility across cultures and generations to address the political, ethical, and aesthetic challenges arising from humanity’s transformative impact on the natural world. Presenting a critical re-evaluation of human relationships to the natural world in dialogue with East Asian traditions, this will be a valuable resource for students and scholars of Philosophy, Environmental Studies and Asian Studies.

As a fascinating study of global justice in Asia, this book presents a series of contributions reflecting upon the conditions of a greater involvement of East Asian traditions of thought in the debate on global justice. Including chapters on diverse issues such as global social inequalities, human rights practice and the functioning of international institutions, this book examines the political cultures of East Asia in order to help political theorists better appraise the distinctiveness of non‐Western ideas of justice. Confirming the persistence of a strong social ethos, the contributions also demonstrate the long-lasting influence of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism in shaping East Asian public conceptions of justice. Bringing much needed non-Western voices to the global justice debate, this book will appeal to students and scholars of politics, law and philosophy, as well as activists involved in the global justice movement.

This book re-examines the relationship between religion and nationalism in a contemporary Asian context, with a focus on East, South and South East Asia. Addressing empirical, analytical, and normative questions, it analyses selected case studies from across Asia, including China, India, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka and compares the differences and commonalities between the diverse configurations of nationalism and religion across the continent. It then goes on to explain reasons for the regional religious resurgence and asks, is the nation-state model, aligned with secularism, suitable for the region? Exploring the two interrelated issues of legacies and possibilities, this book also examines the relationship between nationalism and modernity, identifying possible and desirable trajectories which go beyond existing configurations of nationalism and religion. Bringing together a stellar line up of contributors in the field, Religion and Nationalism in Asia will be a valuable resource for students and scholars of Asian religion and politics as well as sociology, ethnicity, nationalism and comparative politics.

In the years leading up to and directly following rapprochement with China in 1992, the South Korean government looked to ethnic Korean (Chosǒnjok) brides and laborers from northeastern China to restore productivity to its industries and countryside. South Korean officials and the media celebrated these overtures not only as a pragmatic solution to population problems but also as a patriotic project of reuniting ethnic Koreans after nearly fifty years of Cold War separation. As Caren Freeman's fieldwork in China and South Korea shows, the attempt to bridge the geopolitical divide in the name of Korean kinship proved more difficult than any of the parties involved could have imagined. Discriminatory treatment, artificially suppressed wages, clashing gender logics, and the criminalization of so-called runaway brides and undocumented workers tarnished the myth of ethnic homogeneity and exposed the contradictions at the heart of South Korea's transnational kin-making project. Unlike migrant brides who could acquire citizenship, migrant workers were denied the rights of long-term settlement, and stringent quotas restricted their entry. As a result, many Chosǒnjok migrants arranged paper marriages and fabricated familial ties to South Korean citizens to bypass the state apparatus of border control. Making and Faking Kinship depicts acts of "counterfeit kinship," false documents, and the leaving behind of spouses and children as strategies implemented by disenfranchised people to gain mobility within the region's changing political economy.

The rise of Asia in global affairs has forced western thinkers to rethink their assumptions, theories, and conclusions about the region. Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought brings together a mixture of established and rising scholars from both Asia and the West to reflect upon the political philosopher’s thought about China, Japan, Korea, Central Asia, and India. From Voegelin’s writings, readers will not only understand how Voegelin’s approach can illuminate the fundamental principles and issues about Asia but also what are the challenges and possibilities that Asia offers in the twentieth-first century. For those who want to move past the superficial commentary and clichés about Asia, Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought is the book for you.

For Lampert, Strauss's essay is equally important for understanding Strauss himself. Lampert's Strauss is a sympathetic admirer of Nietzsche and his teachings, who ultimately situates him in the company of Plato and elevates understanding the contest between Plato and Nietzsche into the highest task facing contemporary or postmodern philosophy. Why, then, should Strauss have kept this admiration hidden while permitting such a distorted public view of his thought? And why should he have discouraged others from appreciating the teachings that had proved so important to his own philosophical liberation and training? According to Lampert, the answers lie in Strauss's own esoteric writing, full of subtexts, implications, and consequences. Strauss conceived of philosophy as a furtive undertaking, and believed Nietzsche had rejected the necessity of this role for philosophy in favor of a daring candor.