Lee Byeong-haeng's Taegeuk Acupuncture and the Debate over the Modernization of Korean Medicine.

Abstract

This study examines the life and scholarly achievements of Lee Byeong-haeng (1906-1975), who passed the Qualifying Examination for Korean Medical Doctors in 1954 and subsequently established himself as both a clinician and a theorist. By exploring one dimension of the debate over the "modernization" of traditional Korean medicine in which Lee played a significant role, the study seeks to illuminate the intellectual shifts that shaped the 1960s and 1970s, formative decades in the development of contemporary Korean medicine. The analysis draws on major works by Lee, including Annotation of Midnight-Midday Ebb-Flow Acupuncture, Ground and Reground: The Origins and Currents of Acupuncture, and more than twenty academic articles in journals such as Sylva Medica and the Journal of Korean Medicine, along with contemporary medical periodicals and newspapers. These sources allow the study to reconstruct the debate over modernization from multiple perspectives. Despite the absence of formal university training, Lee established himself as an authority in acupuncture through sustained self-directed study. In 1971, he developed Taegeuk Acupuncture, a Korean acupuncture method that integrated the visceral theory of Sasang constitutional medicine, as formulated by Lee Je-ma , into acupuncture theory and practice. Defining yin-yang and deficiency-excess as foundational principles, Lee Byeong-haeng emphasized the primacy of traditional clinical practice. As chair of the Academic Committee of the Korean Fellowship of Korean Medicine Practitioners, an association of doctors licensed through the Qualifying Examination rather than through university training, he engaged in public debates with younger, university-trained practitioners over research methodology and educational structures. Whereas this younger cohort prioritized scientific modernization through Western medical frameworks and modern diagnostic technologies, Lee advocated for an educational approach grounded in traditional principles and emphasized the development of practical acupuncture techniques. Lee's career provides an important case demonstrating that the internal logic of traditional Korean medicine could be sustained and developed through clinical practice, even in the absence of systematic state support or formal institutional training. His confrontation with the younger generation illuminates the tensions among practitioners who shared a common professional identity but pursued divergent visions of what the "modernization" of traditional Korean medicine should entail. His case thus offers a valuable historical perspective on the broader trajectory of modern Korean medicine.