Samuel Kupper
For a long period of time, it has been the fashion in both academic and popular circles to make the assumption that Confucianism, traditional Chinese Culture, and the requirements of modernization are inimical to each other. The purpose of this article is to suggest otherwise, and to further suggest that both Western and Chinese scholars have accepted the criticisms of the May 4th Generation in an almost uncritical fashion without engaging in a more complete examination of Confucian values and its relevancy to modernization.
Born from decades of frustration and the nurturing bud of nationalism, the youth of the May 4th period parroted and for the most part accepted the arguments put forth in Xin Qing Nien (New Youth Magazine) that Confucianism had to be discarded, that its basic premises and underlying value system was responsible for China’s degeneration into a semi-colonial status. Without engaging in critical analysis, and responding the to demands to save their nation, the youth rampantly discarded Confucianism as containing anything viable to resolve China’s dilemma, and sought to embrace a veritable plethora of competing western ideologies and doctrines. The fact that none of the western concepts had any relevancy to China’s tradition or history seemed, not only immaterial, but actually positive, as the youth of the time was determined to sweep China clean of old ideas and embrace anything new that might save the nation. Their arguments are understandable. For the moribund and arch conservative Qing Dynasty had already been swept away into the dustbin of history by the 1911 Revolution, and the situation had only deteriorated with the rise of Yuan Shikai, and soon to be followed by his coterie of warlords.
The view that Confucianism and the demands of modernization were contrary to each other was accepted by American scholars. The late Mary C. Wright, in her brilliant analysis of the Tong-jih Restoration, concluded that the attempts of Zeng Guofan to lead China’s initial modernization in the aftermath of the Taiping Rebellion were a failure, and the last stand of Chinese conservatism. In her concluding chapter, she compared the conservatism of Zeng Goufan to the conservative Confucianism of Jiang Jiehshi (Chiang Kai-shek) as further evidence that Confucianism was out of touch with the requirements of modernization.
Lost in the criticism and dismissal of Imperial Confucianism as practiced during the Qing Dynasty was the creative thought of both Kang Yuwei and Liang Qiqao, particularly the latter, who sought to argue that Confucianism was greater than the conservative aspects of this philosophy as practiced by the Qing Court, and that it was possible to review, to reinterpret the Sage’s teachings in light of the requirements of a new and developing society. Both Kang and Liang seemed to understand that in order to prove its legitimacy, and to gain the support of the scholar literati class, the Qing Court had made a conscious decision from its earliest days to be more Chinese than the Chinese in their strict, fundamentalist, conservative interpretation of Confucianism. Their task was made easier by the conservative, fundamentalism of the Ming Dynasty following the death of the Yung Lo emperor. The initial promise of the Ming, signaled by the exploits of Zheng He’s incredible expeditions was lost amid the struggle of Court politics, as the only way that the scholars could re-gain control over the Court was to re-introduce the most conservative interpretations of Confucianism to preserve their traditional power base.
Long forgotten was that this same philosophical system, Confucianism, was a dynamic force during the great Han Dynasty when China expanded into Central Asia, opened the Silk Road, engaged in great trade and explorations, marched to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Equally forgotten, or consigned to a distant memory was the glory of the Tang Dynasty, perhaps the greatest and most cosmopolitan pre-modern culture the world has ever seen. Chang An (Xian) was one of the greatest capital cities ever, with its streets crowded with merchants from all over, with churches, mosques, temples, all around the city and there was unparalleled religious toleration for other religions and acceptance of other peoples during the heyday of the Tang.
The dynamism of the Southern Song with the world’s first printing facilities, the world’s first paper money and banking system, including letters of exchange, a commercial economy that generated more revenue from tax on commercial activities than land tax, an economy that manufactured more iron and steel than did England during England’s period of industrialization, all of this and more has been forgotten. It was as if all these events and great periods of Chinese history never occurred, or if they did, it must have been under a different system of thought, it could not have been Confucianism. Wrong – all of these periods of greatness and all of these activities occurred during a period of time when Confucianism was embraced as the central ideological system of China.
The difference, it is being suggested, is that when we get to the period starting in the early to mid-Ming and into the Qing Dynastic periods, Confucianism was reinterpreted to foster a closed society. Just as the records of the voyages of Zheng He were burnt and destroyed, and evidence of the greatest fleet of ships the world has ever seen was almost obliterated, so were the interpretations and analysis of Confucian thought that supported these and other exploits, buried under an avalanche on extremely conservative commentaries and interpretations of Confucianism that served the Courts of those periods. For both the Ming, after Yung Lo, and the Qing, each for their own reasons believed it to be in their best interests to keep China closed, conservative, withdrawn and ultimately weak when faced with the Western challenge.
It is time now for China to engage in a period of self-discovery, to return and re-visit and cull from the wisdom of Confucius and his disciples, as well as from the wisdom of Daoism, the greatness of thought that will enable China to proceed forward on its current path of modernization. Every society needs to have a value system, a system of values and beliefs that are representative of the core of its culture. Dispassionately and intellectually understood, religion is a philosophical system of thought, a statement of values and beliefs that uses a Creator image, a reward and punishment system to reinforce the value system. The notion of a Creator was borne of necessity in Western civilization in order to try and bring order from chaos. For the Hebrews, their Creator was so powerful that he could not be seen, his name, Yaweh, to be rarely spoken, and his image never to be represented in any form. It was an unseen and powerful force that helped to explain the vicissitudes of nature and life. In many respects, this idea of a powerful force behind all creation that can never be reduced to common language or understood or shown in a commonly understood form is no stranger to Chinese civilization, for the same concept is set forth in the great classic, the Dao De Jing. [ming ke ming fei chang ming, dao ke dao fei chang dao].
This concept was never challenged by Confucius, and he went a step further and well beyond the point that any civilization has ever accepted. He was and remains far greater than any other philosopher. For, in essence, he challenged his disciples, then and now, to realize that we as human beings are responsible for our own lives and our own civilization. Be respectful to the unknown, he counseled, but focus on what we can do to improve the lives of our fellow human beings in the here and now. For the afterworld is an unknown that can neither be proved nor disproved, but the contemporary world is a reality, and this life is the only life that we know of, and this is the only existence that we are aware of possessing. Focus, he argued, on developing a system of thoughts, beliefs, values that will improve the lives of mankind, in the here and now.
He eschewed reliance on using the force or threat of a Creator God figure to reinforce a value system.
At the core of Confucian thought was the clearly understood factor, relevant then, and even more relevant now, that in the face of change and chaos, people need a value system to guide them, to remind them that as human beings we are guided by a higher standard of values and beliefs, and that this is what separates us from the animal kingdom. That while we all desire to possess riches, wealth and possessions, they should not be acquired at the expense of doing what is right. We should not engage in activities that are immoral, counter to the ideals of truth, honesty, righteousness, a concern for family and for each other in society. He reminded us that there is a difference between human beings who strive for a fulfilling life and those who only strive for a few possessions. There is a difference between the Chunzi and the Xiaoren.
The idea that there are core values which speak to man’s goodness, that seek to elevate us, that seek to spiritualize us to be better than we are, that remind us that in our drive to be successful, we should not be reduced to being xiaoren, all of this and more is even more important now.
The Confucian Thought, broadly understood, to include elements of Daoism and other of China’s great philosophers, needs to be re-examined and reintroduced into modern China before it is too late. No society, however great its material accomplishments may appear, is a society built on quicksand without having its own value system, without having its own core of philosophical or spiritual beliefs. China cannot embrace Western Christianity, despite the efforts of western evangelical Christians, for the very simple reason that Western Christianity, despite its claims to be universalistic, is not – it is western, and born of western experiences,and interpreted and reinterpreted to meet the demands and requirements of a western culture.
China needs to re-evaluate its own historical culture, re-define the essential elements of its own great traditions, its own great spiritual core to re-discover the values that have relevance to the contemporary world. China should not confuse the arch conservative Confucianism of the Ming and Qing period with the dynamism of the Confucianism that produced the Han, Tang and Southern Song periods. Confucianism contains within its core basic human values that are needed now, more than ever. It was Confucius who first set forth the Golden Rule, it was Confucius who first argued that all men are equal, it was Confucius who first argued that everyone should have the right to an education. It was Confucius who argued that it was acceptable to seek riches and wealth so long as acquired justly and therefore unlike early Christians who believed in eschewing world possessions, it was Confucius who reminded us that more than laws, we are a society of people and we have to learn to live with each other. All of these and more, much more, have relevance to a society in the throes of modernization. It is time that China overcame its fixation with the May 4th’s generation of rejection of its culture. For now that China is once again vigorous and strong, once again that the Chinese people have been allowed to express their great talents, it is time to return and rediscover the greatest philosophical schools of all time, Confucianism and Daoism, rediscover the vibrancy and relevancy of these great philosophers and spiritualists for our current times.
