About a month ago, Shunya had asked me what it was that so interested me about Confucianism.
First, I had to stop and think for a minute.
Am I, in fact, interested in Confucianism?
Being interested in Confucius in one sense is like being interested in Socrates-- we really have nothing in the sage's own writing, as everything handed down to us are really the interpretations, extemporizing and extrapolations about what the sage is supposed to have said by those who came after him.
I suppose it is true that the older I get, the more I am drawn to certain practical or tempering aspects of these two practical philosophers-- both whom I am sure I never really appreciated when I was in my Nietzschean twenties.
So, what is it about Confucius? We learn he is even being resurrected after decades of silencing by none-other than the Chinese communist party. What is it about his thinking that continues to speak to us even after 2500 years?
Remember the Nine Tripods that I was telling Mr. Roth about the other day? Remember what the Zhou King's trusty minister 王孫満(*) said to the rebellious Chu army general camped out outside the city walls?
The tripods do not matter, virtue does.
I think this is one aspect of his philosophy that is so appealing to so many-- this stress on individual cultivation, character and virtue (don't all three of those terms seem quaint or old-fashion now?)
I remember reading years ago that China has long been characterized as being a “wise man”--in contrast to “holy man”-- culture (such as those found in India or the Holy Land, for example). While this characterization can be traced all the way to ancient Zhou Dynasty times, with Confucius, the significant role given to self-cultivated wisdom (humanism) came to take center stage.
What does that mean, then, for an individual?
Well, for one thing, the way we live our lives here and now, become very important; for according to Confucius it was this life--rather than metaphysical issues of God and an afterlife-- which truly mattered. To put it very simply, Confucius believed it was in man’s best interest-- indeed it as his true nature-- to live morally and in harmony with nature and in society.
Sam Crane at The Useless Tree describes it this way:
For Confucius, "harmony" is an effect; it is the thing created when individuals fulfill their social roles, especially in regard to their closest loving relationships, their families. It is generated, in a social sense, from the bottom-up, from the myriad individual enactments of personal responsibilities happening in innumerable families and close social networks. Any implementation - in a modern public policy manner - of these sensibilities would have to concern itself with enabling individuals to perform their family and social obligations.
Be sure to read on for his discussion of how this differs from both communist party collectivism as well as liberal individualism.
Confucian harmony is best attained through the cultivation of self, both by the correct performing of rituals (li) which had the power to put one in contact with the wisdom of the past, as well as, and above all, through a Socratic type of self-study ideally leading to the transformation of self.
In the words of one French scholar, Confucian wisdom, inextricably linked with morality, could only be acquired “after an effort lasting every minute of one’s life, by control of the smallest details of conduct, by observation of the rules of life in society (i), by respect for others and for oneself and by the sense of reciprocity (shu)” Man’s task, he explains, was to devote his life to gaining such wisdom through education, ritual, and proper social organization.
A task to last a lifetime; the cultivation of self as expressed through our social interactions, relationships and contributions-- these are all things which I found very compelling. (Do you think a lifetime of reading and travel that was achieved for reasons of pure personal pleasure are as Good, for example, as those which bear fruit in contributions that benefit other people-- even just one's family members, for example? This is an honest question, not a statement).
**
One compelling by-product of Confucian thought which affects the culture at large would be-- first of all, a stress on the past.
Confucius' "Ethical Way” is presented as something passed down from Heaven to the idealized sage-kings of antiquity, and Utopian society was something seen to have been already realized, solely in the reality of the past. It was never, for example, imagined in any sort of hope in the future or an afterlife as in the West. And it was in the past that one could find the “exemplary models” necessary for all moral actions, including the methods of enlightened government. In a similar way to the Italians of the Renaissance who held the Ancients to be the “Grand Exemplars” in everything from art to politics, Confucius taught that the problems of the present age could be best solved by a “return to antiquity.” He considered the ancient kings to have been men of perfect virtue and therefore having been almost godlike.
Confucian, and later Neo-Confucian scholars and philosophers tended to elucidate on everything from political intrigues to philosophical dilemmas in terms of past precedents, “for only those with a clear vision of the past can uphold civilization’s future.” This is something referred to by one famous Chinese art historian as "Possessing the Past." Therefore the libraries and art collections of the various imperial palaces in Chinese history (the area from which I am writing in fact) became potent links to this highly venerated past, representing “a form of historiography that showed how rulers employed ritual, symbol, and history to legitimatize their rule.”
This is also something that appeals to me personally. Indeed, I am no Utopian thinker.
Ideally as well, scholars, philosophers, artists and other literati would have a central place in a Confucian society. As Gloria Davies mentions in her interview with Alan Sanders in a recent edition of the Philosophers Zone,
It's interesting, and in fact I think the Chinese government probably pays a lot more attention to the ramblings of intellectuals in China than any Australian government would to the ramblings of academics like myself, and that's because elite Chinese culture actually does turn on a kind of conviction in the power of ideas. The power of ideas to transform people, to transform society at large. When an intellectual comes up with a particularly catchy phrase, or a persuasive way of describing a situation, you'll find the government actually taking that up.
A government of scholars who are adept at the arts-- what do you think? How would that compare to a government of engineers? Or a government of successful businessmen or career politicians?
I know, I know, it's never going to happen-- no matter what Sam Crane says about Mr. Clinton!
So, I guess we are left with Shunya's issue with the New Confucianism (a movement whose main proponents were in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the US, I believe). To be honest, I just do not see it as being as problematic as Shunya thinks-- for indeed, I always like more Confucius if it means less Maoist philosophy. Yes, Mao's image was scrubbed from the Olympics and harmony and humanism were held up in his place. Was that any worse than the alternative, though?
Having spent my entire adult life in East Asia, I have watched as issues surrounding "Asian Values" starting with Mahathir 15 or so years ago have continued to generate much anxiety and rhetoric (not much dialog really). We, of course, also had Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and I just finished Robert Kagan's new book which paints another dark picture of more conflict between the liberal democracies and the world's many autocracies. And then Shunya asks, "Can't one be progressive without being self-righteous?" Which, I suppose is too ask can one not impose their utopian vision on another culture and still remain *not* on the side of the executioners?"
I think so, but I wonder what Confucius would say?
(*) It is interesting to note that the story of the wise minister (J. I am still waiting on the pinyin for his name! I only know the japanese reading) lives on over a thousand years later in Japan where even today the expression, “to inquire after the weight of the tripods” is still used (albeit by the older generation!) when someone’s ability is being called into question by an inferior.
The Philosophers Zone interview with Gloria Davies is recommended listening.
A short personal note regarding good old 王孫満:
If I recall correctly, his name was Wáng-sūn Mǎn.
Posted by: Pi Ma Wen | September 03, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Thank you very much! Our wise and loyal minister is quite popular in Japan-- as are stories about the nine tripods. For some reason, neither the bronzes nor the man are not as accessible in English languages sources-- I could be looking in the wrong places, though. Thanks very much for stopping by-- Peony
Posted by: Peony | September 03, 2008 at 08:02 PM
There's a couple mentions of 王孫滿 in Burton Watson's abridged translation of the Tso Chuan (左傳). (I believe these are the only two mentions in the original as well). Watson calls him 'royal grandson Man'. In Watson's chapter "The Battle of Yao", he shows up as a boy and makes a good prediction about the Qin army (from 僖公三十三年). The cauldron story is in Burton's chapter "King Chuang of Ch'u and the Cauldrons" (from 宣公三年). It's a decent translation, and that's the only English work I know of that discusses him.
Posted by: Matt A | September 04, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Matt, I really appreciated the reference. I am going to try and get a hold of the Burton translation. I have long been interested in the cauldran story and really recommend Lothar Ledderose's paper “Some Observatons on the Imperial Art Collection in China.”I think he does a really great job explaining the way in which art was used as a symbol of political legitmacy (perhaps functioning something like the regalia of medieval kings in europe?)This is why, of course, CKS went to such elaborate lengths to protect-- and control-- the imperial treasures which found their way into his hands not all that long ago.
Have you ever heard of The Square Ding Dedicated to Mother Wu (12th century B.C.). It is in the history museum in beijing I think (I've never seen it-- tho would very much like to)
This ding is said to be the heaviest bronze vessel found anywhere on earth, weighing in at over 875 kilograms (about the size of a compact car!) Found near the royal Shang burial site at Anyang in March of 1933, the piece was so heavy that it was put back into the ground when it was first discovered. Waiting out World War Two underground, it was finally officially excavated by archaeologists in June of 1946 and then presented to CKS on his 46th birthday. The Japanese books say that he treasured the piece, kept it nearby him in his study during the long period of political struggle and civil war. When the weary Nationalists eventually retreated to Taiwan, the tremendously heavy bronze ding had to be left behind much to his dismay-- for what better symbol of political power could there be then this enormous bronze ding?? I assume you already read this post, but just in case here it is:
http://www.tangdynastytimes.com/2008/07/inside-a-bronze-ding.html
Thanks again for your comment!
Posted by: Peony | September 04, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Even though it's more or less a full translation of the passage, there's only a page or 2 about the 9 cauldrons in Watson's translation (I think your version of the 問鼎 "asking about the cauldrons" story is actually a little bit longer), but I'll still recommend the book as a good read. I really like the cauldron story, too, and will try to get my hands on Ledderose's paper.
I've not seen the real Si Mu Wu Square Ding, but I did see a life-size copy of it at the Yinxu Museum in Anyang. It was still very impressive (and seemed to be the most popular piece in the indoor part of the museum), but you could say it seemed to be lacking something - I doubt the copy could give legitimacy to anything.
I had never heard of the Ding's connection to CKS, though, which is a great story. I'm surprised there wasn't a sign bragging about it at the museum, but maybe I just missed it.
Posted by: Matt | September 04, 2008 at 03:04 PM
It is a fascinating story-- I just went back to check the Japanese (I have two sources-- both NHK published books)and it seems the Province (Anyang Province?) presented the piece as a gift to CKS (which is one reason the museum authorities might not have wanted to brag!)
I was actually more intrigued by him putting it in his study-- how is that possible? How big was his study??? Only 1 of the books describes what happened. After being presented with the goliath ding he did keep it in his study in Shanghai. When they transferred to Nanjing, the ding was carried there, but it had to be left behind during the great evacuation of art that followed not that long after. He still did OK as far as art, I'd say!
When I first saw Venice, I thought: why would anyone want to live anywhere else? Whenever I talk about Chinese history, I similarly think: why would anyone want to think about anything else :)
Have a great day Matt, if your's too is just starting...
Posted by: Peony | September 04, 2008 at 04:23 PM
Very nicely done, Peony! There are lots of excellent, thought-provoking nuggets here. Now that we've discussed one aspect of the new Confucianism on the other blog, here is a question that strikes me (and a possible answer).
You ask: "What is it about his thinking that continues to speak to us even after 2500 years?" But "us" here is really just "East Asians". Confucius has almost no following elsewhere (compare with the Buddha, or even all those Hindu gurus and yogis with their fans in California). Why is there such apathy for his seemingly universal ideas outside East Asia?
Here is a potential answer. The path Confucius advocates is a "society of cultivated individuals"—the emphasis is on both "society" and "cultivated individuals". In other words, it requires enough people to cultivate themselves to establish a critical mass of "social harmony", which then triggers a wider cultivation of individuals and greater harmony, like a chain reaction. But can one speak of a Confucian individual in the West, which has no equivalent goal of social harmony? I think not, because the two really go together and reinforce each other. One is incoherent without the other. Maybe this is why Confucius makes no sense in the West. (The Buddha's enlightenment is of course a very individual path and so it resonates; likewise the idea of saving oneself through the "wisdom" of a Hindu sage.) What do you think?
You say Confucius was a practical philosopher. Hardly. To believe that people will cultivate themselves en masse and build social harmony, that human nature is essentially good and can be perfected, is being utopian by any measure. No?
Posted by: Namit | September 04, 2008 at 09:18 PM
Thanks Namit! I wonder, too, about the seeming weak appeal of Confucian thought in the West. In Japan, it continues to have great relavance. Do you think the only reason is its social focus? I wonder what others think...
Regarding the practicality of his teachings, what I meant was that they are practical in the sense of being concerned with daily life-- the Ethical Life (or like Socrates the Good Life). To be honest, I think his teachings-- while pratical-- are (just as you suggested!) a huge challenge.
On this concept of philosophy for daily life, my other blog is named after a famous expression from Kenko's Essays in Idleness. A Medieval Buddhist monk, Kenko too spoke of what he called the greatest challenge. Walking the path of a Buddhist monk was easy compared to real life, he suggested; one swims into deep waters, not to remain in deep waters, but in order to return back to the shallows. (He said it much better than I did of course!)
I hope someone will have a better answer than this-- in the meantime, I am going to go try and find that quote from Kenko.
Posted by: Peony | September 04, 2008 at 09:48 PM
Nice post. I especially like the quote from Gernet: he packs a lot into that sentence. One question, however. What do you mean when you say: "... I always like more Confucius if it means less Mencius..."? Isn't more Mencius a good thing?
Posted by: Sam | September 07, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Hi Sam, Thank you so much for stopping by! You're right about mencius too-- I just didn't want to make it seem like I was picking on the helmsman alone... (!) Thank you for calling me on it-- you must be a wonderful professor.
I wonder what you think about Namit's question above-- why the comparative lack of interest in Confucian philosophy in the West (Namit compared it to the popularity of some forms of Hindu thought or Zen, for example).
I am tentatively getting ready to put together part 2 of the 21st East Asian History carnival and really wanted to make Confuciansim and "New Confucianism" a theme. I wondered if you had written anything recently on "New Confucianism" on the mainland-- since it has been a popular topic across the blogs I look at.
Finally, I really enjoyed your last post on virtue ethics as well and recommend it to anyone who has not read it yet-- here
http://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2008/09/the-politics-of-virtue-ethics.html
Thanks again for your comment!
Posted by: Peony | September 07, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I am an optimist when it comes to the question of why Confucianism has not had much influence on the West. Perhaps it is simply because not enough effort has been made to present Confucianism to Americans and other Westerners, in ways that connect directly with their own experience. Instead of it being seen as some sort of ancient irrelevancy, if we could translate it into modern terms and issues I think people will be open to it.
Posted by: Sam | September 08, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Interesting. I tend to agree with Namit that there may be something more inherently challenging about Confucianism being embraced by Westerners than say Zen Buddhism (another ancient philosophy that does resonate with modern people it seems). That is not to say that I think Confucianims to be ancient irrelavancy. Quite the opposite. Just that it may be a harder sell.
Posted by: Peony | September 08, 2008 at 01:43 PM