Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
PJ Wehry (00:04.12)
Hello and welcome to Chasing Leviathan. I'm your host, PJ Weary, and I'm here today with Dr. Jin Park, professor and department chair of philosophy and religion at American University. We're here today to talk about her book, Marginality, Solidarity and the Fight for Social Change. Dr. Park, Jin, wonderful to have you on today.
Jin Park (00:24.06)
Thank you very much. It's great to see you and thank you for having me.
PJ Wehry (00:28.942)
So just to start things off, why this book?
Jin Park (00:34.566)
Wow. Okay. So this is a part of a No Limits series at Columbia University Press. And then one day I got email from the editor of this series and he asked me, you be interested in kind of writing a book for this series? And then he said that, well, this series is not just any kind of philosophy book, but it is a public facing book.
In other words, its audience is not just scholars and academics, but it's a general audience. And that first thing was really attracting to me because I've been always thinking that scholarship is not for just scholars and not for just students, but we need to communicate with the general public. And that is really the case with philosophy. So that was attracting. And at the same time, it's a shorter than regular academic book. Usually academic book is like a
PJ Wehry (01:02.158)
Mm.
Jin Park (01:30.856)
100,000 words. This one is only 40,000 words plus minus, give and take. And another interesting thing is that he said, well, the title of this book is just one word. So all the books in this series has just one more title. That's really attracting. One word can say a lot of things. And immediately I responded, I mean, my topic will be marginality.
And both the series editor and the Colombian Press Editor, they love this. So I wrote this book and it's interesting and so made a combination of various things that I've been doing in here. I'm a Buddhist philosopher. I also do Buddhism and Western intercultural philosophy. I also do gender issue. I also work on violence and all the things. But I also have a little bit of a
creative writing background. A long time ago, I published some kind of short stories. And so I do all this east to west philosophy, literature, and religion, all the things. So I wanted to, before this book, I always want you to do certain kind of experimental writing as a scholar. So if you are a writer, there's all kind of experimental writing you can do, something like, okay, but, you know, as a scholar, there's always limitation.
PJ Wehry (02:32.866)
Jin Park (02:56.338)
So my first monograph, which usually is in an academia for your tenure, So it's really written in a very much academic way. And then later I heard that some people kind of returned a book when they were asked to write a review because they said, it's too difficult. It's too difficult because it has Buddhism, continental philosophy, and so on and so forth.
And then my niece, who's not an academic at all, she also kind of bought this book, got this my first monograph. And she said, I tried to read this book, but I couldn't go beyond first page. It's too difficult. Obviously, she's not a philosopher, but there is a problem with this, right? And then now I have a tenure. Now I'm a full professor. So I thought that. And then this book is not for any kind of promotion or anything like that. And then.
PJ Wehry (03:37.046)
Yeah, yeah
Jin Park (03:51.859)
publisher actually wanted to do something for general public. So I really exercised all kind of experimental spirit I've been thinking about. So all the things combined, I really enjoyed writing this book and I hope that readers enjoy reading it. Each chapter starts with one scene in my life. Something happened in my life. The first one is like a
about 40 years ago when I first left Korea to come to United States and so on and so forth. So these are the images as I said in the introduction, these are the images which constantly still remained with me. Why? Why are these kind of scene in my life remained with me? And so maybe they are the moments when I kind of had very condensed emotional reaction to the situation. And my philosophy, my scholarship has been in a way
a way to theoretically, philosophically interpret these kind of issues. But I didn't incorporate my own experience because, well, philosophy is not about your life and so on and so forth. But in this book, I combine this, my own experience and the various philosophical issues. And then I really get to the kind of topics I've been interested in, I've been working on, like gender discrimination and race.
and violence and what we do with this especially very touch topic nowadays. So all these things combined together, it was really the kind of thing I really wanted to do but then I didn't have a chance to and this opportunity arose so I just grabbed it.
PJ Wehry (05:36.756)
well, that's awesome. Multiple things that I appreciate about it. mean, if anyone who has followed this channel or even if you just take a second to look at this channel, it's not a philosophy podcast, it's a big questions podcast because I think we need interdisciplinary answers. And I really appreciate the intercultural dialogue. appreciate that you're I can see why reviewers are like.
Jin Park (05:55.93)
Exactly.
PJ Wehry (06:04.034)
I'm supposed to answer competently about Buddhism and continental philosophy, but we need that. We need these answers and we need to have this dialogue across. And so I appreciate you doing that. I also appreciate that you were interested, not only you were excited about sharing your personal experiences and how they have shaped and called forth your philosophy. I think that's something that is missing that is important to a lot of philosophy. It's very clear that...
I think a lot more philosophy would be clear and we'd be able to maybe address and critique quicker if some people's personal experiences were shown and you could see that's what they were arguing about all along. like, I think actually in this case, you were actually a jerk and you shouldn't be arguing for this. Or on the other hand, you're like, I didn't realize this is what you were trying to defend. Let me help you defend that. Right? I think that's...
Giving the material, the concrete application, I think is really important. So I'm excited about it too. I love the book. I love that it's short and it's clear. Thank you. Like you said, that's not, know, it's nice to have that. need, I do believe in dense tomes. I do read some dense tomes, but it is nice to have something that you can sink your teeth into, but finish in a timely manner. So all that said, thank you. I'm excited about it.
As we kind of, you know, just walking through this, what does the word marginality mean? Because that's really what you unpack at the beginning and you give five different kinds. So if you can give us kind of an overview of marginality and then what are those five different kinds of marginality?
Jin Park (07:51.186)
So marginality, actually, it's interesting. When I thought about writing a book on marginality, until that time I haven't done the research on how many books are on marginality. But then once I decide to write a book on marginality, I did a research how many people work on it. You know what? Not many. If you Google, you go to, yeah.
There are not many. It was really so interesting to me because this idea of margin and center, that's a fundamental structure of discrimination and hierarchical relationship in a society throughout the history of human beings. But then there are not many books on marginality. And that was interesting. We use this expression discrimination and bias and hierarchy, but then people didn't write on marginality.
I kind of jokingly but realistically tell my students, people that I'm an expert at being at the margin. I'm a woman in a patriarchal society. I'm an Asian in West Central world. I am Asian in the white world. I do Asian philosophy in the academia, which doesn't even sometimes account Asian philosophy as a philosophy. And I teach Asian philosophy in an academia where the humanities is at the margin.
So, and then I am like a middle class in a capitalist society. So I'm triple, quadruple, all kinds of marginal being. Now the next question is, if you are at the margin, what happened to you? If that is the case, you are at the margin, so you are doomed. You should stay there and then you don't have any kind of agency or whatever. Then that's too terrible, right? There should be something that you can make sense out of.
this your own position. And that's, think, the beginning of this idea of thinking about marginality. So definitely, it started a long, time ago, even though I didn't kind of title it as marginality. So to think about the class issue in a Korean society before I left Korea, that's the beginning of this first chapter, Departure.
Jin Park (10:14.62)
So Korean society is very much a Confucian society, kind of very neatly related to society. Human connection is very important, which is very nice on the one hand, on the other. If you do not have a real connection, you can go only so far in a position in a society. So when I left Korea in 1980s, I mean, there is no way at the time when I...
the way that I looked at the Korean society and my own position in the society, there's no way I can get a job, this is a job in this society. And when I was, so that has social issue, right? And when I was in a grad school, 80 % of, 70 % of grad students perhaps were women, but one professor came to class and say, wonderful, reason, whatever is the context. But he said that, girls, we don't hire women. That was not illegal at the time.
Now it's a lot better. And then I was asking myself, what am I doing here? The professor says that we don't hire women, right? What am I doing here? They all kind of, these kind of questions really ask, let me ask the issue of society, but at the same time, my own survival. If I'm a woman, I'm a woman in a patriarchal society, so I don't have a job perhaps as a professor.
No possibility. And I don't have much connection in a kind of society where connection is very important. So still I don't have a kind of possibility of getting the kind of job I would like to have in my career. So what do I do with this? And throughout the kind of over the case as I developed my scholarship, I talk about this, discrimination, hierarchical society, and so on and so forth, but I never actually connected it with my own experience.
So once again, marginality, I directly connected with my own experiences. And after I finished this, since it was fun to write it, but on the other end, you feel like you are standing naked out there because you have your own experience out there. But I said, OK, I will risk that.
PJ Wehry (12:21.742)
Nuh-uh.
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (12:28.366)
So you end with this, I think it's the very last sentence, but you talk about the capacity to act, to resist marks the beginning of hope.
And because of the nature of it, I hope you don't mind, it is a personal question, but you've you started with we don't hire women and now you're the chair of a department of philosophy and religion. What is that journey been like? Because obviously there were some obstacles in the way. when you talk about the capacity to act and to resist, you're speaking
Jin Park (12:53.266)
Yeah. Right.
PJ Wehry (13:09.27)
very much from experience.
Jin Park (13:11.662)
Right, exactly. I said, like, I left Korea in 1988. So it's almost 40 years. Obviously, I lived in the US longer than I lived in Korea. I mean, throughout this, in the United States, when I first came to continue my study, the situation was not too much different. I didn't have much money in this society. I didn't have much connection. So there is a lot of kind of struggle, a lot of kind of
despair, a lot of crying. So in a way, I think it is really holding on to your goal. I don't know what my goal was. I mean, I wanted to continue study since I was a little girl, but I didn't know that path should be an academic. being an academic is the best way to continue study, especially in the humanities. But
down. My goal was really I tried to make sense of life. I don't know why, but since I was a little girl, I asked myself, what is this all about? Right? I was born into this world, and I'm going to die someday. And then what is this about? Does anyone know? And when I was a little girl, I thought that other know the answer. Otherwise, they cannot live life like that as if nothing is problem, right? Because I was struggling as a little kid.
And then I thought that I'm the only stupid girl who does not know what this life is all about. So my whole kind of energy was focusing on to find out the meaning of this existence. And as I grew up and get older and older and older, eventually I realized it's not that other to know the answer. They just continue to live. And I think that that was kind of basis of my scholarship and my energy.
I still trying to find a meaning of a good distance, but the kind of direction has changed a little bit. At certain point of my young adult life, I realized that to find ultimate meaning of life might not be possible. Then the next best is to think about what is the best way to live this life meaningfully. then that is a philosophical in means that's where I turn to ethics.
Jin Park (15:40.804)
So when I was in college, I never thought that I will be an expert in ethics because ethics for me at the time meant that do this, don't do that, do this, don't do that, this kind of rules. as a women in a Confucian patriarchal society, ethics means that you have to follow the social norms, most of which about women, most of which I do not agree. And then only later I realized that ethics is not that.
Ethics is not really creating rules, but ethics is really trying to find out the best way to live this life and not just only by yourself, but with other people. Flourishing of, Aristotle says the flourishing of human being. Nowadays we say flourishing of all beings, all existence. And I think that is a foundation of my struggle, which constantly
held me to stand up and I fell. So yeah, as you asked, so all these years there were a lot of struggles and a lot of kind of efforts to continue to search for the answers to the best life, most meaningful life, and even define what might be the values in existence, right? How do we create values? What is the meaning of existence? How do we know that the meaning you
you are looking for is actually a meaningful thing. All these kind of very much philosophical questions. And the action, the last sentence of this action, actually, I'd like to go to the sequel to this book. So I ended this book about action. And that's actually from Hannah Arendt. Hannah Arendt makes a distinction between labor work and action.
PJ Wehry (17:26.754)
Mm-hmm.
Jin Park (17:34.664)
So labor is really very something manual. You can kind of create something for survival. That's labor. Work is something that you produce a little bit durable thing, work of art. That's work. But action for our rent means something very different. So she says that, you know, if you are rich or if you are aristocrat before pre-modern, you don't have to labor.
Perhaps if you don't even have to do work, right? If you do not want to make a contribution to human world, you don't have to worry about that. But action is when make human being as human being, right? Because action means turning things around, Turn things meaning is a beginning of something, right? Which according to Arendt is a beginning of hope. If you do not act,
There is no future as far as you act. There is a possibility of future, some hope. And I think that was what I have been holding on to. I mean, when I went to the doctoral program, I didn't know that, not even whether I could finish it. know, doctoral students struggle all the time and they say, no, I cannot do this. I cannot do this. And you complete your doctoral degree.
And then you don't know ever that whether you're going to get a job and then you get a job and you get a job, you don't know whether you will land on a tenure track job or part-time job. was lucky to finish the doctoral program and then they landed on a tenure line and then I got tenure and so on. So I was lucky throughout this process, but also I worked hard and struggling. So a lot of struggles, but people always struggle.
PJ Wehry (19:25.838)
Yeah, I mean, and I appreciate you say that because, yeah, the life, like you have to have action to have hope, right? And that means that you are struggling against something. So some people have more struggles than others. Some people like and everyone has different struggles. And I don't know. That was a point way to end your answer. So thank you.
Now you mentioned that violence is the key driver of marginality.
Jin Park (19:59.816)
Mm.
PJ Wehry (20:01.236)
And so one, I would love to hear a little bit about that, but I'm also interested because though, if you, if this is beyond the scope of our conversation, that's fine. I'm curious, what are other drivers of marginality besides violence? If violence is the key driver, it sounds like there's other drivers for marginality. I, I, maybe a part of it is because I can immediately see what, like how violence is the key driver.
Jin Park (20:05.137)
Mm-hmm.
Jin Park (20:19.338)
Mm-mm, mm-mm, mm-mm.
PJ Wehry (20:29.112)
But I think I'm also interested in these other ways that marginality is driven.
Jin Park (20:37.936)
Right. So violence is for whatever reason, one of the topics I've been working on for a long time. And when you think about violence, we usually think about very immediate and visual violence, something like gun violence or war, rape. But there are different types of violences. Right. So to just decide the Jacques Derrida, 20th century French philosopher,
PJ Wehry (20:53.314)
Yes.
Jin Park (21:06.692)
in his first book of grammatology, Derrida talk about three types of violence. The first type of the violence is language. language violence? Yes. So the moment somebody identify me as a woman, there is already certain kind of identity that is imposed on me. So Asian women, obviously, I am an Asian woman. That much is clear. But
that this definition language Asian women is not value neutral. That is why black and white, this kind of black and white, they are both color. But when you use these expressions, we do not use in neutral way. So language is always a violent. It is not the problem of language because language functions by giving a definition, but that does not mean that it's not violent.
And the violence, obviously, when we hear that language is violent, we usually assume certain kind of curse and effort, things like that. No, they are like immediate violence. But then all this kind of identity formation, drooled language is violent because the moment somebody call me Asian woman or even simply, seemingly positive way, professor, could it be a positive identity? But still it is a violence because
I'm not just a professor. I'm somebody's daughter. I'm somebody's friend and so on and so forth. There are diverse aspects of my existence and I cannot be confined to a professor. Right? So this is the linguistic violence. Next, the second stage of violence is ethics and the law. Now people say that how can a law be a violence? How can the ethics be violence? But law, constitutions, even ethics,
They are all constructed by human beings, which means that there are people, there are a group of people who constructed these rules and the laws and ethics. And there are people who were not able to participate in the creation of these laws, ethics, and who cannot participate in the execution of these laws and ethics. So in the 1920s and 30s,
Jin Park (23:27.366)
when Korean women resisted this Confucian patriarchal society, one of the women's journals says that the morality itself is a violence to women, right? So because morality is based on patriarchal rules and then patriarchal laws and which is all against women or just imposing women what they should do and shouldn't do.
So the second layer is ethics and the laws and constitutions and rules and norms of society. The third layer is actually physical violence. If you look at this three layers of violence, we see a lot of kind of violence in our society and especially something like discrimination, racism in our society or poverty. This is a violence about human beings. So.
This is related to marginality because those who are subjected to this violence are those who are at the margin. So that is why this violence is one of the major factors to disadvantage those people at the margin. But there are obviously other factors which put people at the margin, social systems and things like that.
think that the structure of central and margin itself is violent because a society need a structure. Even though we talk about equality and equity, institution, an organization always need a structure. Without structure, it's impossible to manage the system. Without system, mean, if two people
Think about you gathering with your friends. If there are three people gathering, there is one person who make a decision, right? Where should we meet? There's always somebody, okay, let's go here. I mean, the person is kind of a leader, you know, is the leader. So in this, you can put the person at the center. Okay, you are the leader today and then we will follow you. This kind of central margin is not based on violence because in a way this is not in a discriminatory.
PJ Wehry (25:26.049)
You
Jin Park (25:48.392)
and the central margin, and some people make more money at the center, some people make less money at the margin based on the kind of level of expertise required for the job and so on and so forth. Then, is understood, I'm not thinking about any kind of ideal world where there is no distinction in the class or things like that. I don't think that's possible. On the other hand, if the center exploit the margin,
By using this structure, that is the beginning of violence. And that's inevitable in a way, human tendency of like to get more for oneself, enjoy privileging. So I wanted to say that in this book that having a central margin is inevitable, but then if you kind of abuse your central position to exploit those people at the margin,
And then that kind of create a violence. So I think we need to, my students often ask me, will there be a society where everybody's equal? Will there be a society where there's no racism? And I said, unfortunately, I don't think so. There will be this kind of problems as far as there is a society. Our efforts should focus not on imagining a society, no racism, no.
no kind of discrimination, but how we actually mitigate the problems we have because of these structural problems we are facing.
PJ Wehry (27:26.894)
I wanna make sure that I'm tracking with you, again, thank you, I appreciate the answer. What an example, and I would love to talk about how it can be problematic, but one example of a structure that could be not problematic would be the structure of time. When we talk about center and margin. So for instance, we're talking about laws. I have children.
my children should not be helping to make laws, right? like they're not like, like there's a natural, like parents or adults should be setting the rules for kids, right? Until they come of age. And that's not, that can be problematic. We have seen where the interests of children have not been looked out for.
Jin Park (28:00.123)
Yeah
PJ Wehry (28:21.602)
but it doesn't have to be problematic and that's a natural center and margin in terms of authority and in terms of ability. Would that be an example of non-problematic?
Jin Park (28:33.512)
Instead of saying that non problematic, how about using the expression that be sensitive to the limitations of the rules and laws. Any rules, any laws will have a limitation because they are created by the position of creator. You create a rules and rules for your children based on your position. Obviously you did it so then you can
PJ Wehry (28:50.83)
Mmm.
Jin Park (29:02.76)
help your children grow up well, but that's from your perspective. So that means that if you accept that there will be a limitation because it is a law, I created it, even though that I did it for my children, then that will a little mitigate the problems. But we usually do not think that way. I don't think that I don't, I'm not saying that we do not need laws, we do not need ethics or norms.
They are needed in a society, whereas the issue is that really how much we are sensitive to the limitations of those structures. And that's why my last chapter is reflexive engagement, how we constantly reflect upon the limitations and possible problems of the laws and rules.
PJ Wehry (29:47.939)
Mm-hmm.
Jin Park (29:57.256)
have because of the kind of problem of its creation. The origin of any rules and laws, it's the position of the creator. Obviously, even when you create the rules for your children, I know you think various different things to help your children, but then still it's your position.
PJ Wehry (30:18.476)
Yeah. Yeah. I like it's recognizing our own finitude, our own limits. so it's the, the children need authority, but it's important that that authority recognizes its own limits. Like I, and this is the reflexive part of this, if I'm understanding correctly, would look something like, I have a 12 year old daughter and she has come up and she has said, Hey, I noticed you said this. I, you know,
Jin Park (30:19.762)
Yeah.
Jin Park (30:25.531)
Exactly.
Jin Park (30:33.923)
Exactly, yeah.
PJ Wehry (30:48.152)
I understand why you said this. Here's some better reasoning. And I changed my mind. Would that be an example? Right. It's being willing to listen and acknowledge like, I hadn't thought of that, which I'm not saying I do that every time, but that's what I should be doing.
Jin Park (30:56.314)
Right.
Jin Park (31:03.044)
Exactly. Yeah.
Right. And I think that we need to practice for that. And then that's like a Buddhist practice comes from that. I constantly reflect upon one's own action and thinking and things like that. So I use this reflexive engagement when originally first I thought the solidarity is a little bit different context because my claim is that everybody is at the margin in some way.
PJ Wehry (31:12.11)
Hmm.
PJ Wehry (31:29.538)
Hmm.
Jin Park (31:36.04)
Half of the world's is women. They are at the margin. More than half of the world's population is middle or lower class in a capitalist society. They are at the margin. If you really think about this, everybody is at the margin in one way or another. But the thing is that if you have, everybody has both the central position and marginal position, then would you like to kind of foreground the marginal position? No. You want to hide the marginal position and then you can show off your central position.
I said that I am three-fourth, quadruple marginal position, but I can say that I am a professor of philosophy and department chair. If I just to kind of put this forward and forget about my marginality, there is obviously problems. So my claim was that, okay, what is called the solidarity of margin. Think about your marginal position and try to understand other people at the margin in a different situation, even though you are at the center in that situation. But then...
As you know, that the solidarity is a kind of dangerous expression or concept nowadays, especially if we look at the 20th century world history. Solidarity has been used for totalitarian government to kind of exhort people to follow me, solidarity, we stand together. So that kind of solidarity require reflection. When you engage in
problem, engage with the society when you're trying to understand others. Solidarity needs to be combined with reflection. You have to think about what you are doing, what you are committing when you make a commitment to social issues. Then you have to really ask yourself whether that is a good thing. When you go out and protest for your cause, you constantly should ask whether the protest really is the right thing to do.
we can be carried away saying, I'm kind of socially engaged with for justice. But justice is another very dangerous concept. If you really not reflect upon what this justice is for and for whom, whether this justice is just enough. So, I mean, it's a very delicate issue, but this is very delicate issue really create a lot of differences and problems in our society. And we are really facing them.
PJ Wehry (33:59.758)
So I want to see if I'm tracking with you here. I'm a devout Christian, so when we're talking about solidarity and weakness, that to me sounds like some of the Christian concepts of humility and mutual submission, which the Bible calls us to. Is there some crossover there? Would that be the idea of
Jin Park (34:12.188)
Hmm.
Jin Park (34:20.84)
Mm.
PJ Wehry (34:27.434)
acknowledging our limits together and finding common ground through that and being humble? is there a crossover with what you're pulling from the Buddhist tradition, or am I just completely missing it? Then that's okay too.
Jin Park (34:46.152)
So you mean that when I say the solidarity of the margin, is that your question?
PJ Wehry (34:51.67)
Yes, recognize instead of accentuating our strength and trying to find other people who can congregate around our strong identity, accentuating where we are at the margins and accentuating our limits. Right.
Jin Park (35:07.49)
Mm-hmm. Right, exactly. Exactly. So the solidarity of the margin is that to think about your marginal position and then see other people at the margin in the same context, trying to understand that empathy. Actually, you talk about the religion. So one of the books that you just said on marginality when I do research was marginality written by the
Korean theologian, Korean American theologian, he passed away a couple of years right after he published that book in 1990s, I think, was the marginality and intercultural theology. Jung Young-Li, what he said there, he's a theologian, so he talked about Christianity, but he also deals with the religion and the being at the margin. He says that all the founders of major religious tradition,
PJ Wehry (35:49.442)
Mm,
Jin Park (36:05.306)
they were from margin. Jesus Christ was born in a very humble place, not in a castle, right? The Buddha, he was born as a kind of privileged family, but he left that position and went to the wilderness. He was basically homeless people, right? The Buddhist practitioners in those days. So all the founders of religious traditions, major religious traditions, they were from the margin.
But nowadays, people who claim to practice religion, they are running toward the center and trying to kind of occupy the central position. And they need to kind of realize that is not the original intention of the founders. So center, he put it in this way, center, he's the Christian theologian, center should be divinity. Divine power is at the center. Human being is at the margin.
That's exactly the case, right? Everybody's margin as a created being, we face it, we are finite being. Then this marginality should be really our existential reality. That is the only clear thing in our existence, even though we do not want to accept that. So that in the kind of existential spectrum, here is a God at the center, human being is at the margin, but we're trying to...
kind of ignore that in most of our existence. If we are constantly being kind of reminded of it, it's a little bit kind of depressing, but if you are being constantly reminded about our finite, the kind of the limited, the existence, then we might be able to exercise a little bit more humility, as you mentioned, and further a little bit of the understanding, compassion for other people.
PJ Wehry (37:42.604)
Yeah.
Jin Park (38:00.784)
And that definitely need a practice. And I think that is a practice of religion. And I also think that that is a practice of philosophy. In Western philosophy, people tend to think that philosophy is about ideas and religion is about practice. And I don't think so. Doing philosophy itself is a practice. I mean, there is a reason why I am a Buddhist scholar. I'm a
Postmodern scholar, I'm a scholar of Derrida, I'm not a Kantian, I'm not Hegelian, I'm not a Sertilian. There are reasons why that is the case. My value system, my ideas, my kind of lifestyle align more with this philosophy I am an expert of. So I definitely think philosophy is a practice and religion is also a practice. And if we really practice this, we can have a better understanding of this kind of problem of central and margin and
think about what it means to be at the margin, how this margin can make a contribution to society, create a better society for everybody.
PJ Wehry (39:06.624)
I think a really good way to just continue this thread, you kind of teased at the beginning, you talked about the flourishing, not just of human beings, but at a post, hopefully post-anthropocene age, we have the flourishing of all beings. As you talk about action, as you talk about practice, you also ended the book by talking about, and I would love to hear,
Jin Park (39:22.277)
Right exactly.
PJ Wehry (39:35.244)
your own study in Buddhism and how this applies here, feeding a hungry dog is a more authentic form of practicing Buddhism than making offerings to the Buddha at a temple. And so to me, that speaks directly to what you're talking about, that philosophy is a practice, that religion is a practice. Can you speak a little bit more about that and how that applies to the flourishing of all beings?
Jin Park (39:46.876)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Jin Park (40:00.156)
That's right. Yeah. So the example that I use there is from a very well-known Korean Zen Sun Master, Sung Chul, who was perhaps the most well-known important figure in the late 20th century Korean Sun Buddhism. He was a really very, very rigid, strict practitioner. He said that. when we... This one is actually related to this idea of...
the practitioners of religion trying to run to the center whereas founders were from the margin. In other words, when you think about really practicing Buddhism and pray to the Buddha, you offer rice in Buddhist temples, you offer rice, you offer money, you offer all the things. But then what he said is that they are good. Those things are good. You can make merit. But just to look at if there's a hungry dog passing by,
That is more immediate, right? That is the kind of saving actual living being. And that means that
we need to practice, whether it's a philosophy or religion, in our daily existence. And that is also related to this kind of public philosophy or public scholarship, trying to communicate with the people out there. I don't think that this public philosophy or public scholarship is kind of a dumbed down version of this academic one. It is just a different way of kind of...
expressing your ideas. So Buddhism, because it has a long history, 2600 years history and it's spread all over the world. There are all different versions of Buddhism. But if you say if you know, somebody who claimed to be a Buddhist, hear that expression, right? So it's better to feed the hungry dog than just offering money to the Buddha statue.
Jin Park (42:03.292)
then most of them must agree with them. It has to do with humility. It has to do with compassion. And as you know that the Buddhist worldview says that you are not just independent individual. Your existence is possible because of the contribution of all these different beings, whether that's other human being or non-human animals or even inanimate.
If we really think about our existence from that perspective, this hungry dog or a plant which is kind of dying in your pot, they are all part of your existence. The water your plant, something like that. So I think it's important in a way because think about this, if you are a person or if I am the person who see the hungry dog and
PJ Wehry (42:42.456)
Yeah.
Jin Park (42:59.804)
decide not to feed a dog, can that person actually do the better thing for other human beings? I don't think so. So it is your one action is really reflection of you or yourself. If you can throw a plant, but if a plant is dying and if you do not water it, in a way that is a reflection of your way of treating other beings. So even though it is just about a
dog is not about just a dog, but it is our relationship with other being, whether it's other human beings or other non-human animals, animated being, or even even in animate. So that has a lot to do with human beings mess up with nature and ecological problem because human being put out themselves at the center and then kind of
try not to pay attention to these issues, then you kind of mess up with nature, which is part of you. It is not human versus nature. Human being is nature.
PJ Wehry (44:11.79)
and I think as you talk about the reflection of yourself, seeing that reflection of yourself in that, can you speak a little bit more to that? How does that weave into the practice? What is the value? One, obviously it makes a difference for the dog, but why is it important to see that reflection and to act on that reflection or to change that reflection?
Jin Park (44:42.261)
Mm-mm. I think.
Jin Park (44:47.144)
Nowadays, my approach to any change, meaningful social change, is to start from the very, very small thing. In a way, it is a grassroots approach instead of institution. And this is related to my previous comments about reflection on yourself. I think we constantly cultivate ourselves in a good way or bad way. In other words, we are constantly
PJ Wehry (44:56.59)
Mm.
Jin Park (45:17.032)
creating ourselves. So when you decide not to do something, not to feed a hungry dog, that attitude, that small one action will grow into not feeding other human beings because you don't think they are not important. You didn't feed a dog because obviously you thought that the dog does not deserve to live.
the dog does not have a meaning in your existence. This cannot just stop there. If you decide this living being does not deserve to live, then it's a simple next stop that, you know, there's somebody who's dying of hunger, does not deserve to live. So that kind of extension is really what make our society terrible. If you put it the other way around,
you see hungry dog and if you can feed it and when you see somebody who's hungry, perhaps you can kind of make it your habit of giving something, whatever, not big thing perhaps, but whatever you can offer for it, give it to that person, then it will expand.
expand. perhaps there is a movie called the paid forward. Do know that? There is a movie paid for it was. Yeah, it was. I don't know about 20 years ago, some something like that. I was it was in my Buddhism course, a student says there is a movie which is about the Buddhist karma. And what is it and paid forward? I never heard of so I watched the movie. What happened is that in the movie, the fifth grader or anyway, that
PJ Wehry (46:37.248)
Okay. I may have heard of it. Go ahead.
Jin Park (46:59.728)
fourth grader, fifth grader students as a social study project, he did this one. Everybody, each individual does three good things. Then it will kind of have a dominant impact. So these three people will do three things. And three things, then there will be all the kind of good things happening in the world. That was his idea, three people, right? So he tried to kind of make three people to do good things.
to do good things. And this is a kind of obviously a movie, but I think that has a kind of a message, something like if I try to do three good things to three people, it is my effort. I'm training myself to do it. And I constantly asking myself that kind of questions of whether am I doing the right thing, whether what I think right is actually right. And this is a habit. It's like playing guitar requires practice every day.
And our mental capacity requires that kind of training every day. We need to eat every day. Why do we not think that our brain needs to be fed every day? So I think that is really what I meant by this practice.
PJ Wehry (48:13.666)
Yeah, yeah. From a Christian perspective, I think of the term grace, but what you're talking about is, is these extra, these extra acts where you do, you go above and beyond three times a day. that, am I, and, building, and obviously, you know, but what you're doing is building a habit that will then become just part of who you are. And
Jin Park (48:38.178)
Right, exactly. Yeah. But then if you say above and beyond, it sounds like a very big thing. On the other hand, what I would like to say really something you could do, right? You can really, I mean, we all need to make an effort, but there are things that we don't make big, big efforts we can still do, which we do not really think that way usually. So this need a lot of training, constant training. So I mean.
PJ Wehry (48:44.802)
Yeah, yeah.
Yes.
PJ Wehry (48:56.365)
Yes.
Jin Park (49:06.108)
I think that's a part of the value of religion and philosophy, make people think about this issue. And I think that is one of the most important part of training in humanities course classes in educational system.
PJ Wehry (49:22.318)
What I love so much, what you're saying is so edifying because it's about the little things. We look at the big problems of the world and we despair, but what you're talking about, like, and what I meant by above and beyond, and I appreciate you saying that because it does sound like you're like, you got to do like this big thing. It's like, no, like stopping and doing just something a little extra, you know, whether it is, you know,
Jin Park (49:41.8)
Yes.
PJ Wehry (49:50.354)
I think of the idea of pay it forward, paying for someone's coffee when you normally wouldn't, you know, stop and grow, you know, or, we have household chores. have a lot of kids. So one of the things I love, my, my wife has, sometimes stepped in and done their chore before they got there and just, you know, and that's above and beyond, but it's, it's such a little thing.
Jin Park (49:54.983)
Yeah.
Jin Park (50:03.56)
you
Jin Park (50:11.75)
Mm-mm.
PJ Wehry (50:17.88)
but to see the way that that changes them and what that communicates to them, is that a good, like, I think that's what you're getting at and what I appreciate is that that is within everyone's grasp and to act is to hope. Is that, am I tracking with you?
Jin Park (50:34.472)
Right, that is what I said. In other words, I don't know, it just came to my mind just to say that when situation changes, when the world changes, I might change my mind. But at this point, this juncture of historical juncture, I don't see much kind of hope in looking at the big institutions or world politics to save themselves or save us.
PJ Wehry (50:45.08)
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (50:50.914)
Yeah.
Jin Park (51:01.544)
unless we save ourselves in a way that, you if you read the newspapers every morning, and then, though usually you get despair. And then the way that, and then you think that, what can I do? I'm just one person. I'm just, I'm not even a police maker. I'm just a kind of college professor and so on and so forth. But if each one of us really think about what we can do to make changes, it might sounds like big, make changes in a society.
But each one of us, if we really think about it and do small thing, I think that will kind of be a certain kind of driving force. And this driving force will accumulate when there is a chance, when this chance occurs, this will have a really power to make changes.
PJ Wehry (51:54.26)
What an encouraging thing. I love that. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Let me just, I want to be respectful of your time. Let me end by asking you this question. And I think you've already kind of given a great answer for this, but it's just the, how I always end. Besides buying and reading your excellent book, I always want to make sure I, besides buying and reading your excellent book marginality.
What is something that you would recommend to someone who's just listened to us talk here for the last hour? What is something you'd recommend that they think about, meditate on, or do over the next week after listening to us?
Jin Park (52:38.792)
That's an interesting question. I don't know whether I can ask people to do this, but if they really reflect upon the issues that we discussed today and then think about themselves and their situation and how they can actually apply this idea to their individual situation, that will be a great beginning. is really Hanna Arendt's beginning of hope, I think. mean, it is really important.
Hope is another topic I never thought that I will be interested in, but when you despair, you are really thinking about hope. And then as I was looking for this hope, where do we find hope in this time of real all kind of violence? And then I realized that just the thinking of hope itself is a hope, right? If I didn't have a hope, I wouldn't even think about hope.
PJ Wehry (53:36.375)
Hahaha
Jin Park (53:36.464)
If I didn't have a hope, I wouldn't even think about action. So if we really think about ourselves in this context, and Arendt was right, if we decided to act in however small that might be, this is the beginning of turning the wheel. In Buddhism, it is called turning the wheel of the Dharma. That is the first sermon the Buddha gave to his disciples. Just turning it a little bit, and that will be the beginning of...
PJ Wehry (53:56.046)
Hmm.
Jin Park (54:05.928)
So, I mean, if the audience or whoever is watching this video and really think about their situation and how it might apply to their situation, whatever they are doing, and think about what little thing they can start and what kind of hope we can create, that will be really great.
PJ Wehry (54:28.59)
Dr. Park, Jen, absolute pleasure having you on today. Thank you.
Jin Park (54:33.362)
Thank you.