Confucius and the Modern World

Lai Chen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351268905
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

This book represents the cutting edge of theoretical works on Confucianism. Starting from Confucianism's comeback in modern China and ending with the proposal of the new philosophical concept of "multiple universality" in the face of the world culture, the author conducts an in-depth analysis and discussion of many facets of the relationship between Confucianism, Confucian traditions and the modern world culture.

It has a focused theme and a strong sense of contemporaneity, and responds to the current challenges confronting Confucianism from the perspective of modern culture. The chapters not only elucidate the Confucian position in the face of challenges of global ethics, dialogues on human rights, and ecological civilization, but also provide a modern interpretation of classical Confucian ideas on education, politics and ritual politics as well as an analysis of the development of modern Confucianism. All in all, this work is a comprehensive exposition of the Confucian values and their modern implications.

1 Confucius and modern China

In the past century, China has made an in-depth criticism on its own cultural tradition in an all-round way, which wins wide attention in the world’s history. Perhaps it is because of this that the current phenomena concerning the rejuvenation of traditional culture have aroused general concern. This seems to indicate that all changes in history and culture since China entered into modern times are tightly bound to issues of “tradition”.

As a matter of fact, whether people like Confucius and the Confucian School or not, over the past 2,000 years and more, the Confucian School has taken a prominent position in China’s society and culture and played a dominant role in the formation of Chinese culture so much that sometimes Confucian tradition is viewed as the representative of Chinese culture and Confucius as a symbol of cultural identity. Another fact is that the revolutionary movements and the modernization drive in the 20th century brought about great changes to the image of Confucius and the fate of the Confucian School. For example, the introspection and criticism over Confucius and the Confucian School played a dominant role in the cultural movement in the 20th century. Entering the 21st century, as China’s economy has developed fast and its status on the international political and economic arena has been uplifted, there has been a great clamour for rediscovering Confucius and the ideology and culture of Confucianism. In this era of calling for “cultural self-consciousness”, we expect to evaluate Confucius and Confucianism against a backdrop featuring development of time-honoured civilization in modern times, analysing the issue in the realistic situation of globalization, pushing forward the pondering over this subject to a deeper level by combining theoretical thinking with practical concern.

Let’s first illustrate the three interpretive modes for the intellectual history concerning the topic of “Confucius and modern China” and then try to describe the realistic situation concerning “Confucius and modern China”.

One

The topic “Confucius and modern China” is easily associated with a famous work entitled Confucian China and Its Modern Fate written by Joseph R. Levenson 40 years ago. Particularly, the book contains a chapter which is entitled “Confucius’ Status in Communist China”. At the end of the chapter, Levenson said,

Confucius was stricken down in the first revolutionary wave in the 20th century. The precious historical continuity and sense of identity seem to have been cut off and oblivious. Many schools have tried to reintegrate Confucius and the continuity and identity of history. In this regard, Communists have played their role in searching for the bygone age and have wise strategies and methods of their own, i.e., to restore the true colors of history and Confucius and to view him in historical background.¹

Then, what does it mean by “viewing Confucius in historical background”? Some part of the book is entitled “Walking into History”. This means that Confucian ideology and culture, as far as the author is concerned, had lost their actual existence and function in China and became a “past” and a history during the period of the 1950s and 1960s. While commenting on the cultural policy in China then, Joseph R. Levenson said: “Communists may nationalize Confucius and make him separated from the existing society and the coming history and let him return to the past and view him as a figure in the past”.² Different from the subsequent “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976), in an interval at the beginning of the 1960s, an academic discussion on Confucius was made in a dispassionate manner, although it was just a transitory occurrence. Levenson had such a comment on this:

Alike to these historical remains, there is no need for the Communist Party to cast off Confucius once for all. In this sense, Confucius may be protected to some extent and has his value of existence. The Communist Party does not intend to deprive of the significance of his existence but to take the place of its cultural function. To put it simple, protecting Confucius does not mean that the authorities of the Communist Party intend to rejuvenate Confucianism. Instead, it means to take Confucianism as a collection in the museum. The aim is to evict it out of the realistic culture.³

Of course, Confucius was a figure in the past. However, by making Confucius return to the past, here it means looking at him as “a dead man living in the past”. It means to make Confucian doctrine a thought in the past so that it has neither any influence or functions in modern times and that Confucius and his doctrine are nothing but a historical relic preserved in a museum. From this angle, by putting Confucius in history, it means “properly locking Confucius in the display window of the museum”. It must be admitted that while Levenson commented on China’s cultural policies in the 1960s, his remarks showed no sign of being influenced by Cold War ideology. Rather, he felt somewhat sympathetic about China’s cultural policies and methods in that period. This is an indication of his simplicity and sober-mindedness as a historian.

From this we can see that Levenson’s famous metaphor of “collection of museum” is, as a matter of fact, not his cultural proposition. Rather, it is, first of all, his summary of China’s cultural policies during the period between 1950s and 1960s as an on-looker. Next, such a summary includes his perception for and judgement of the social reality of China, i.e., the Confucian School has “stepped into history”. In this sense, Confucius, who has also gone into history, should neither be worshipped nor denounced. So, he is no longer a target to be beaten back.

Two

Levenson died in 1969. Although he did not live long enough to see the movement smashing Confucianism in the early 1970s, “museum collection” was obviously subject to impact and confusion under the slogan of “holding high the banner of getting rid of the traditional ideology and culture” during the Cultural Revolution. Could it be said that collections in the museum, although having become history, have to be fiercely mauled?

However, for Li Zehou (born in 1930), there is no such puzzle. In 1980, he published his article Revaluation on Confucius, written in the late 1970s. Li’s thought is featured by taking Confucius and Confucianism as “a culture which has had great influence on the Chinese nation – a mental structure”. He takes it as an approach to interpret Confucius. According to this interpretation, Confucius has not “become a history”. Instead, he has always played his role in history and reality. Li Zehou pointed out:

The cultural thoughts initiated by Confucius have infiltrated into the concepts, behaviors, customs, beliefs, modes of thinking and affective states of the public. They have, consciously or unconsciously, become the guiding principle and basic means for people to deal with affairs, relations and life, and constituted the common psychological state and traits of character of the Chinese nation. It should be noted that the thoughts and theories of Confucianism have evolved into a culture, i.e., a mental structure. Whether you like it or not, it has been a historical and realistic existence.⁴

As far as Li Zehou is concerned, this mental structure has converted into national wisdom.

It is the internal existence and civilization accumulated for the survival and development of the Chinese nation. With its great power of succession, enduring function, and relative independence, it has, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, influenced, governed or even dominated people today from contents to form, from code of ethics, concept of truth to thinking model and aesthetic taste, etc.⁵

Although cultural psychology and national wisdom are not transcendental existence, which is beyond time, space and history, they are, obviously, not a mummy in the 20th century which has entered into history. Nor is it a ghost which has nothing to attach to. Rather, it is a lasting, continued, living and deep-seated existence.

According to Li Zehou, historically, Confucianism used to rely on the traditional educational, political and family systems, all of which, however, disintegrated and became history altogether in the 20th century. Nevertheless, Confucianism itself has not entered into history altogether in that it has developed into a national disposition. In this sense, Confucius and Confucianism are, without doubt, not collections in museums. Instead, they exist and play their roles in the real life and mind of the public, intellectuals and politicians. Even today, no one can deny Li’s view in this regard. So, it must be admitted that Confucianism’s influence on the behaviour and psychology of Chinese people is the reality of China and a fundamental national condition which all scholars who study the social sciences of modern China must face and deal with earnestly.

Three

It is equally obvious that Confucianism cannot be summed up as remains in history. Its significance which transcends history is not limited to the existence of the structure of cultural mentality. As a matter of fact, it has a broader significance of cultural tradition and resources. This has been revealed in Benjamin I. Schwartz’s metaphor in a sense. Schwartz (1916–1999), a famous modern sinologist, in dealing with Levenson’s metaphor which sees Confucius and Confucianism as a museum, compared these to a library. According to Schwartz, intellectual history is not a museum but a library. From the perspective of the tradition and resources of intellectual history, this is of vital significance. Hegel (1770–1831) once said,

The initial presentation of ideological activities is, in the first place, a historical fact and a thing in the past, which seems to be spared from the reality. As a matter of fact, however, we are ourselves in that we have history. Or, to be more correct, just in the field of intellectual history, things in the past are just one side which leads to the present of ours. The element which has intercommunity and permanency are integrated with and inseparable to our historicity.⁶

That is to say, things in the past in intellectual history exist in our real life. From the perspective of ontology, “past” is something that determines what we are “we” now. Here, the “we” may refer to individuals, an ethnic group or a nation. In this sense, the “library” metaphor is far from enough. From the perspective of intellectual history, Hegel held that the life of intellectual history lies in activities. “Its activities take an existing material as its premise. Its activities are done to deal with these materials. Not only does it have some materials added but also mainly have them processed and transformed”.⁷ Traditions in the past pass on the pioneer undertakings of previous generations, and the cultural achievements of each generation are the human spirit’s recipient and conversion of the heritages of bygone ages. So, tradition is the premise for the mental activities of each era. Leo Strauss (1899–1973) also stressed that doctrines of great ancient philosophers have not only vital historical significance but also practical significance. To have a good knowledge of both the ancient and modern societies, we have to have a good command of but also learn from these doctrines because the problems they raised still exist today.⁸ He even affirmed that the wisdom of ancient thinkers was superior to that of modern wisdom. Of course, opinions differ in this regard. The significance of Confucianism as a cultural resource or intellectual history refers to the fact that its thinking on morals, politics and human nature still plays a role and has its significance in modern thinking.

Four

Talking about cultural tradition, we naturally refer to Tradition, a classic by Edward Shils. It should be noted that a special chapter, entitled “Social Sciences’ Ignorance to Tradition”, is included in its preface. Edward Shils held that modern social sciences are influenced by the concepts of the Enlightenment and take in the attitude of suspecting tradition and the “social” concept which cannot accept tradition. According to him,

Reading about the analysis made by modern scientists on what took place in special situations, we may find that they may mention the pecuniary interest of the participants and their irrational fear and will to power. They interpret the internal solidarity of the groups on the basis of irrational recognition or stake. They also mention the strategies for group leadership but talk little about the intimate connection between tradition and great events. Realistic social scientists do not mention tradition.⁹

He held that social sciences persevere in “realistic and on-the-spot” study but neglect the “historical dimension” of time. Therefore, he continues:

The aims and norms of actions, the basis and motivation of accepting these aims and norms as well as the tendency of the repeated appearance of faiths, conventions and systems (we call them ‘tradition’) are, more often than not, regarded as no problem. The more theoretically developed the branches of social sciences, the less attention the traditional factors in society are paid to.¹⁰

According to the analysis by Hills, social sciences’ negligence over tradition is, in the final analysis, attributed to many reasons, the ultimate of which is that social scientists have taken in the ideas of progressivism. For this reason, they feel an aversion to tradition and see it as backwardness and even something reactionary. They hold that modern society is moving towards no tradition and that “stake” and “power” will dominate man’s behaviour. He illustrated his point by saying:

Max Weber, the greatest sociologist, surely is not so wild about progress. However, he holds a general viewpoint. According to Max Weber, in the final analysis, there are two kinds of society. One is a society which is caught in tradition. In the other society, the selection criterion for behavior is rational calculation to realize the maximum satisfaction of interests… . Deduced from this viewpoint, modern society is marching towards a traditionless state in which the main basis for action is to chase after interests with reason and tradition is a remnant which is antipathetic to the style of modern society. While expounding on the modern society, Max Weber obviously left little room for tradition, though he showed somewhat tragic eloquence in the course of his illustration of this point.¹¹

Hills’ criticism over modern social sciences is perhaps too severe. In the field of Chinese social sciences, quite a few scholars dedicated to social sciences are engaged in the study in Confucianism-related fields such as sociology, the science of law and psychology. In particular, scholars from Hong Kong studying social sciences are the first who are subject to criticism in this regard. However, Hills’ criticism has definite objects, targeting directly at disciplinary habits in economics and political science as well as the new dogmas in social sciences like the “rational economic man assumption”. On the other hand, it also aims at the mental state of most scholars engaged in social sciences in contemporary Chinese society. As a matter of fact, scholars dedicated to humanity and social sciences should pay close attention to and think about the issues concerning society and culture as well as other public spheres including tradition.

On the other hand, Hills also pointed out that in the 20th century people had reflections on modern civilization. Modern civilization is scientific, rational and individualistic as well as hedonistic. “One of people’s blames against the bourgeois society is that it has made people break away from order on which there lies significance of existence”. Tradition is precisely a constituent part of this order of significance, and tradition is its guarantee, the source of significance and the guarantee of the quality of civilization. Modern society, while e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword to the Chinese edition
• 1 Confucius and modern China
• 2 Whose justice and what ethics? Confucian ethics and a global ethic
• 3 Confucianism and power discourse
• 4 The Confucian tradition and public intellectuals
• 5 Ecological orientation and modern interpretation of the Confucian doctrine of benevolence
• 6 Confucian ritual study and modern society
• 7 The Confucian views on the dialogue between Confucius and Jesus – noumenon and origin
• 8 Confucianism and modern East Asia
• 9 Confucian ethics and China’s modernization
• 10 Modern Chinese culture and the predicament of Confucianism
• 11 The three themes on early Chinese political philosophy
• 12 On moral politics – the idiosyncrasy of Confucian political philosophy
• 13 On the educational thought of Confucianism
• 14 Towards real world culture – multi-element universalism in the era of globalization
• Postscript
• Index