Abstract

The dissertation is a comparative study of the uses of the Korean term "han" in contemporary minjung theology and traditional Korean philosophy. Korean minjung theology uses the term to highlight the resentment of the oppressed masses, whereas traditional philosophy uses the term to designate a metaphysics of oneness or wholeness. The writing system used in Korea renders these different uses of "han" by different characters. However, the English language transliteration of the two distinctive uses of "han" has masked the distinction that exists in Korean, thus creating theological and philosophical as well as semantic problems. The English designation of minjung usage by "haan" and the philosophical usage by "han" is a step in the direction of differentiation. ;Haan, which means resentment or unresolved suffering, has been used in minjung theology to identify a personal intra-psychical, psychological, or affective phenomenon. Han, however, has been used in philosophy as a metaphysical and ontological term. Han has over twenty meanings among which are "oneness," "great," "same," "whole," "middle." In the historical context, Koreans have used han for expressing national identity. In this usage of han, han denotes "great." But such usage may not be equated with a philosophy or ideology of nationalism. ;The dissertation extends the fundamental studies of Korean scholars such as Sang-Yil Kim, Min-Hong Choi, and Sun-Hwan Pyun who have clarified the respective contextual theological and philosophical usages of han, and have highlighted their complementarity. Choi developed the philosophical aspect of han. Kim extended the ontological aspect of han and called it "nonorientability" which means "no boundary," "nonsubstance," and "uncertainty." Pyun is one of the first scholars to examine minjung theology in the light of the theological implications of han philosophy in order to resolve haan. ;The present study extends the philosophical term "han" by comparing it favorably with selected Western thinkers who, in the opinion of the author, advocate "relational" theories as a corrective to "dualistic" options. The study thereby contributes theological and philosophical clarity not only to han philosophy and minjung theology but also to their understanding in the West