What Confucius Said

(This essay was published in Culture Wars, the reviews publication of the Institute of Ideas, London, in Feb 2009.)

During the Cultural Revolution, millions of Red Guards rampaged at the behest of Chairman Mao to rid China of its "Four Olds": old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. They defaced ancient monuments, destroyed historical artifacts, burnt monasteries, persecuted traditional arts, and tortured minorities and "bourgeois thinkers", leaving half-a-million dead in their wake. A special venom was directed at things Confucian. Encouraged to question their parents and teachers (who were traditionally revered), youngsters were soon marching with slogans like: "Parents may love me, but not as much as Chairman Mao".

Regarded later as an unmitigated disaster even by diehard commies, this wasn't the first time a Chinese leader had turned against Confucianism. The very first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, who also commissioned the Terracotta Army, had launched his own great Confucian purge in the third century BCE. But such events are anomalies for Confucianism, which would revive, adapt, and thrive again (the longest slump was during the Tang dynasty), giving China a distinctive cultural continuity for almost 2500 years.

No person has left a deeper mark on Chinese culture than Confucius, who lived 2500 years ago in an age of social turmoil. He was a member of the scholar or professional class who managed to become a mid-level bureaucrat and sought to define and practice the art of ruling.[1] Though, like Plato, he had no success in the real world, he laid the foundation of a great deal of subsequent Chinese reflection on the education and comportment of the ideal man, how he should live and interact with others, and the forms of society and government in which he should participate.[2]

Like the Buddha, Jesus, and Socrates, Confucius too never wrote a word. Even the Analects of Confucius, considered closest to his thought, was compiled after his death by many generations of disciples. To understand what he inspired in China, a better approach is to read the Analects along with three exegetical works that form the animating core of Confucianism, i.e., the Confucian canon—the Book of Mencius, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean.

*****

A striking feature of the Confucian canon is its overwhelming concern with life in this world. While there is an abstract Heaven and the obligation to respect one's ancestors, God is conspicuously absent. Nor is there much metaphysical wonder or concern with the origin of the universe, the nature of mind and matter (as in Buddhism), or death and beyond. Humans, according to Confucius, should waste no time in trying to understand the forces of heaven and the realm of the spirits, and concentrate instead on the problems of this world, best tackled through education and character development. Confucianism, in this sense, is less religion or speculative thought, more a humanistic discourse on personal and social conduct.

The Golden Rule ("Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself") finds a prominent mention in the canon. Many propositions are based on moral reciprocity. The dominant view is that human nature is innately good but is corrupted due to our failings. With effort, each of us can perfect it and recover the original goodness. This, in fact, is the goal of all learning—to discover our universal human nature and live a worldly life in accord with it—the Way of the Heaven, or simply, the Way. A clear implication is that recovering our innate nature will lead to inner peace and social harmony.

Furthermore, the canon considers all men to be equal in their moral capacities and that any person can become a sage, or at least a superior man. That men may not pursue the path of self-improvement did trouble Confucius, as in his pithy but despairing remark that he had "never seen a man who loved virtue as much as sex". Yet, he never lost his faith in the transforming and sustaining power of education.[3] (Right: a painting depicting normal life in a Confucian society; see the same society pre-Confucius.)

Confucius believed that cultivation of the self lies at the root of social order, which in turn is the basis for peace and political stability.[4] A progressive and radical thinker in his time, he approved his society's move away from a slave-owning to a feudal age (taking this out of context, modern commies and capitalists have called him reactionary). Worthy men, he said, were under no obligation to serve unworthy rulers, and must be prepared to sacrifice their lives in defense of principle.[5] Analects 9:26 says: "One may rob an army of its commander-in-chief; one cannot deprive the humblest man of his free will." A good government rules humanely, "by virtue and moral example rather than by punishment of force."[6]  The canon enumerates the qualities of the exemplary ruler. For instance, he must possess five virtues: benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness. He must use nine standards to administer the empire:

cultivating the personal life, honoring the worthy, being affectionate to relatives, being respectful toward the great ministers, identifying oneself with the whole body of officers, treating the common people as one's own children, attracting the various artisans, showing tenderness to strangers from far countries, and extending kindly and awesome influence on the feudal lords.[6]

*****

Centuries later, in early 2nd millennium CE, the impact of Buddhism, Taoism, and other social transformations led to what we now call Neo-Confucianism. While it mainstreamed the Taoist concepts of chi, yin and yang, and tai-chi, Neo-Confucianism also took a turn for the worse, taking a more hierarchical view of society. For instance, it expounded on five social relationships and the conduct appropriate for each: ruler and ruled, son and father, younger brother and older, wife and husband, friend and friend. It advocated submission to authority, loyalty and obedience, orthodox family values, filial piety, thrift and hard work. Confucius, almost certainly, would have disapproved.

Like Chinese food in India, Buddhism altered its flavor in China. Despite their shared agnosticism and focus on this world, the primacy of the individual spiritual quest, detachment, and monasticism in Buddhism posed a threat to Confucianism. What therefore arose in China was a "Confucianized" Buddhism. And just as Hinduism borrowed from and then marginalized Buddhism in India, Neo-Confucianism marginalized Buddhism in China, not the least because it was a "foreign faith" (though it would not disappear as completely as in India).

The Confucian canon, notably, was a vital part of the curriculum of China's civil services exams for 1300 years (until 1905). This China-wide administrative system (which likely shaped the British model in India) helped forge cultural homogeneity and common social values, reduce political regionalism, and build a common identity that made possible the Chinese nationalism of the twentieth century. Not surprisingly, this came at a price. According to Jonathan Spence,

By the 12th century AD, something approximating a state Confucianism was in place and over time this came to encapsulate certain general truths that had not figured prominently in the original Analects. For example, now included under this broad definition of Confucian thought were hostility to or the demeaning of women, a rigid and inflexible system of family hierarchies, contempt for trade and capital accumulation, support of extraordinarily harsh punishments, a slavish dedication to outmoded rituals of obedience and deference, and a pattern of sycophantic response to the demands of central imperial power.

This no doubt contributed to the subsequent stasis in Chinese civilization. The birthplace of paper, printing, gunpowder, and the magnetic compass turned inward, uncreative, and xenophobic. The sense of humiliation that colonial encounters left behind, the experience of Maoism, and the worldly Confucian ethos of its people under post-Mao regimes go a long way in explaining the tenor of modern China.

A new form of Confucianism is ascendant again. The Chinese government now aggressively promotes it and has even established 120 Confucius Institutes in 50 countries. Shrines to Confucius now abound in China. "Harmony" was a notable theme at the Beijing Olympics. The sage has been co-opted by the market-friendly authoritarian regimes of East Asia to help drive voluntary obedience, law and order, and nationalism. These regimes also withhold a host of human rights from their citizens under the pretext that "Asian Values" are different from "Western values". That's not what Confucius would have said. The Analects makes clear that "he stood for something far closer to personal liberty than to unswerving obedience to the state".[3]

______________________________

[1] Jonathan Spence in Confucian Ways, Reith Lectures, 2008.
[2] Confucius, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[3] What Confucius Said, Jonathan Spence reviews Simon Leys's translation of the Analects, NYRB, 1997.
[4] Confucianism, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008.
[5] The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
[6] A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-Tsit Chan.

All but the "Little Red Book" image were taken during my travels in China last year. See more photos here.

Comments

[Peony]

Hi Namit! I really enjoyed this!! I will be responding at my place to you later, but for now, a few quick things:

1) I don't think it's the mainland chinese government (CCP) that is agressively promoting the overseas confucian centers, but rather communities of overseas Chinese people in places like Canada or California.

2) Also, the mainland Chinese gov't's lukewarm co-opting of Confucianism for the Olympics is extremely new-- so I don't necessarily believe they are co-opting the sage to help drive voluntary repression (they don't actually require Confucius for that).

3) I really disagree that East Asian governments are utilizing Confucianism to repress their people as you imply. Places like Singapore, Korea and Japan with their paternalistic styles of government that hold up social harmony (sometimes even beyond individual liberty) are fine examples of a kind of confucian-style society-- I don't know. Having lived my entire adult life in East Asia I have never once felt that the People are struggling to break free of a repressive kind of government so they can form a free, more individual society like the US, for example. I would really argue the opposite, in fact.

4) The Philosophers Zone has a really good show on new confucianism last week that I highly recommend

[Namit]

Thanks Peony. I'll keep an eye on your place. I had planned a follow-on post to reflect in more detail on politics and society in modern China. Allow me a few days. For now here is a quick response.

It is one thing for a culture to not exhibit a thirst for democracy, or western-style individualism. I agree, this is generally true in Chinese cultural territories, and that these are aspects of diversity with no a priori moral disadvantages. But it is another thing for an authoritarian, single-party government to argue that certain rights in the UN charter are not relevant or desired by its people, because in their culture "individuals must put the states' rights before their own" (Chinese foreign minister at the Human Rights conference in Vienna), etc.

Who decides that freedom from indefinite detention without trial, justice, freedom of movement or religion, and intellectual dissent are non-Asian values? Or visiting any site on the web—like shunya.net, banned in China! Far more than "Asian values" (which do differ in many ways from "Western values")—each time the Chinese or Singaporean regimes invoke that term to justify their actions—all I see are the universal "values of power". Paying lip service to Confucius only helps legitimize their mission and methods (do read Sen on this).

Btw, check out Xinhuanet: "The Confucius Institute Headquarters [in Beijing] is a non-profit institute under the Chinese Ministry of Education. It sponsors courses of Chinese language and culture to promote better understanding of the Chinese language and culture around the world. It now has more than 260 headquarters in 75 countries [since 2004]" and has been criticized as "a platform for the Chinese government."

[Peony]

In brief, I think you will find the going rough if you lump together governments as diverse as mainland China's with Singapore or other "east Asian counties;" (Japan or Korea for example) many of which do, in fact, evoke the term Asian Values. The region is just much too diverse and "Confucianism" and "Asian values" mean different things in different places.

On the same note, I do think it mis-leading to imply that Confucian centers around the world are an arm of repressive regimes-- this may be true in some, not in others. Overseas South Korean communities, for example, organize such cultural programs. That's the thing-- East Asia and Confucian societies are amazingly diverse, as is the concept of Confucianism within the various societies.

Cheers.

[Peony]

PS: One more quick note: When the Chinese minister said what he said in Vienna--I would guess his reasons had more to do with Chinese communist party philosophy than with Confucius or Asian values, and again the "Asian values" made famous by Mahathir 10-15 years ago, are very different from the Confucianism of Korea or the neo-Confucianism we see being expressed very very recently in mainland China... Japan of course very rarely-- if ever-- uses any of these terms diplomatically as they have another very different model of being different from the Western values.

You might be interested in Daniel Bell's new book.
Looking forward to hearing more in your next post.

Have a great week!

[Namit]

I don't disagree with you but I'm puzzled by your reading. Where did I mention or imply Japan and S Korea? My post says "market-friendly authoritarian regimes of East Asia" -- Japan and S Korea are democracies. I then added that "authoritarian, single-party governments" (citing China and Singapore) are not to be trusted to represent or promote "Asian values" (and I only spoke of the Chinese Confucius Institutes, not S Korean or others -- where did I imply the latter?).

Indeed, "Asian values" and "Confucian values" are not the same and I'm not interested here in how they differ. My point is that all this talk of "cultural values" by authoritarian regimes (especially while opposing human rights at UN conferences) is designed to preserve their own power (and Confucius is now opportunistically co-opted as an ally, just as how the Hindu right wing simplifies and idealizes historical figures like Shivaji for legitimacy and nationalism). Among other things, it helps the CCP average 27 executions a day, many without trial. They are the ones who, with their "values talk", collapse the diversity within their own societies. As Sen notes,

The recognition of diversity within different cultures is extremely important in the contemporary world, since we are constantly bombarded by oversimple generalizations about "Western civilization," "Asian values," "African cultures," and so on. These unfounded readings of history and civilization are not only intellectually shallow, they also add to the divisiveness of the world in which we live. The authoritarian readings of Asian values that are increasingly championed in some quarters do not survive scrutiny...

[Peony]

Hi Namit-- If you go back and look at my original comment, I was trying to say 3 things: 1) That not all Confucian centers are aggressive arms of the Chinese Communist party; 2) there is a huge difference between China and Singapore (and then because you mentioned **East Asia** I added the so-called paternal-style governments of Korea and Japan-); and 3) that the Chinese government's flirting with what it calls "humanism" and the new Confucianism is very recent and to my mind has not be used to validate communist party philosophy to the extent you are implying here (their rhetoric, I think has more to do with Nationalism than any kind of "Asian Values"-- which I have rarely if ever heard coming from Mainland China).

These were my only points. The conversation unfortunately is going off on a real tangent ....

Too much is being conflated for my personal preferance.

Interestingly, China plays the "culture card" to a far less degree than Asian liberal democracies. I mean when Japan didn't want to buy American beef what did it say? What else could it have said? And, is the only alternative to playing the "culture values" card, just joining the dominate cultural hegemon? Malaysia and other southeast Asian nations often cite the "Asian values" card for that reason as well. France does as well-- but does this mean that French culture is being used to prop up an evil empire? No, it is more complicated I think.

Individual rights are subordinate to the state in varying degrees in many places around the world--and different countries cite different reasons.

Is a democracy with rampant corruption and corporate favortism preferable to a one-part state which delivers universal health care, safe streets and educational opportunities? Or what about an open society with corruption and organized crime at unprecedented levels? Singapore, of course, being a 1 party state without firewalls or executions. Don't you gloss over a hugely significant difference by lumping Singapore and China together just because they both are ostensibly Confucianism (and China only in like the last several years after decades of taboo??)

Anyway, I actually have nothing interesting to say on this topic so am signing off!

Cheers.

[Namit]

Peony, thanks for the clarification. You do have interesting things to say. A couple more observations on your last comment:

-- Yes, almost every government plays the "culture card", but few play it to deny human rights (that makes France different from China).

-- Are free speech and fair trials the most important human rights? No. I see this as a red-herring question that frequently comes up when criticisms of China emerge. China has done well on many fronts, but poorly on others. For an individual to call this out can be just that: a critical evaluation, empathy for a people, a hope for improvement, or the desire to not be on the side of the executioners. Why conclude that democracy is being proposed as the cure-all (maybe because some do that I suppose, but not me)? One can strive to be progressive without being self-righteous (I'm echoing Orville Schell). Nor should we assume that it is a zero-sum game, i.e., universal health care is mutually exclusive from the right to expression, or safe streets are mutually exclusive from freedom of religion. What do you think?

[Peony]

You know I always agree with you! :)

[Namit]

Note to readers:
Peony, a woman of her word, has a terrific response up on her blog. Check it out.

[Jordan Fisher]

I couldn't help but notice, that while you said Confucius would have disapproved of Neo-Confucianism, you failed to support that point. I just happen to have the opposite impression after reading the Analects, so I was wondering if I had missed or had forgotten the evidence that you allude to when you say that. I'm simply curious, and in no way, am I trying to sound snide or flippant.

[Namit]

Jordan,

My reading of the Analects and commentaries on it by Simon Leys and Jonathan Spence persuaded me that Neo-Confucianism was much more conservative and hierarchical than what the sage stood for. For e.g., he did not elevate obedience or submission to authority to the extent that Neo-Confucianism did, and had encouraged resistance to unjust rulers, to the point of even sacrificing one's life for principles (don't ask me for full citations next). As I see it, Neo-Confucianism represented a "tightening of the screws" rather than a discontinuity.