Christianity or Confucianism: Which Engenders More Honesty?

      A reader emails with a question that emerged in a discussion she had with friends about the relative merits of the moral systems of Christianity and Confucianism.  Her friends say that Confucianism relies too much on "face," or how one is perceived by others, and thus leads to a lack of authentic, internally-generated morality.  They therefore conclude that:

...  western Christian values foster honesty more than Confucianism.

     This hearkens back to a long-standing distinction between "guilt" cultures versus "shame" cultures and, I think, ultimately rests on a misreading of Confucius and an idealization of the effects of Western Christianity.

     The shame/guilt dichotomy goes back to Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist of Japan.  She argued that traditional Japan (and some might extend this to other Confucian societies: China and Korea) relied upon social expectations, which are external to the individual, as the primary means of defining proper behavior.  What matters is where a person is positioned in society; that positioning defines proper behavior; and if a person does the wrong thing based on those social expectations, then correction comes from losing face, or being shamed, in the eyes of the community.  It is an external thing. 

    Guilt societies, the argument goes, regulate proper behavior from the inside out.  There is some sense of general equality ("we are all equal in the eyes of God," for example) and thus, universal standards of morality that apply to everyone, regardless of social rank.  Moral expectations are, or must be, internalized, so that an individual will look inward and reflect upon whether he or she is living up to the standard that applies to all.  It is an internal thing. 

    These are big, unwieldy generalizations that breakdown when looked at more carefully.  Here are a couple of problems.

     First, in the case of Confucius, he was quite clearly, at least in what he wrote in the Analects (and how this is carried over into the writings of Mencius), not saying that morality is simply a matter of externally-generated standards that can be used to shame individuals into doing the right thing.  He was very much saying that we must internalize ethical standards, some of which have universal aspects, and constantly look inward and ask if we are living up to them in our daily lives.  Many quotations could be marshaled in support of this idea, here' s one

The Master said: “A ruler who has rectified himself never gives orders, and all goes well. A ruler who has not rectified himself gives orders, and the people never follow. (13.6)

     In other words, if a person has not undergone serious self-cultivation, reflecting upon and acting upon ethical rightness, then he or she can never be effective in defining moral standards for a community.  Before you can say to another what the right thing to do is, you must already be thinking and doing the right thing in your own life. 

     Here's a quote from Mencius along the same lines: 

"Mencius said: 'The ten thousand things [everything] are all there in me.  And there's no joy greater than looking within and finding myself faithful to them.  Treat others as you would be treated.  Devote yourself to that, for there's no more direct approach to Humanity." (236)

     This doesn't sound to me like a predominantly externally-generated moral order.  Indeed, the Confucian-Mencian tradition is based upon a complex interplay of external social responsibility and internal personal conscience.

     It should also be said that Confucius looked down upon those who carried out their social responsibilities just for show or without genuine personal and emotional engagement.  Going through the motions to "save face" is completely contrary to his teachings.

     One the other side of the equation, we can sometimes be too quick to believe that Western moral systems, like Christianity, are somehow more honest because they are based on more genuinely internally-driven understandings.  The briefest consideration of the current sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church suggests that Western Christians, even the leadership of Western Christian churches, can become obsessed with saving face in the community, even if that means protecting sexual predators and repressing the suffering of young victims. 

     I am not saying Catholics are somehow unique in this regard. I'm sure we could think of instances where Christianity relies on shame instead of guilt.  Rather, I am suggesting we should all embrace a certain humility when considering whether one moral system is more "honest" than another.  Each has the potential for honesty or dishonesty.

Comments

[Lloyd Eby]

I was one of the participants in the original discussion with the reader you mention above. I did not discuss the issue in terms of a contrast between Christianity and Confucianism, but in terms of a number of points that seem to me to imply that Confucianism is ethically deficient. (In my original message I used the subject line "Confucianism is evil." I admit that I deliberately used this explosive language to get attention and to put the problem, as I see it anyway, as starkly as possible.)

Here is my original message on this topic:

1. Confucianism elevates the leader/ top man (it's almost always a man in Confucianism, hardly ever a woman) to too high a position so that the underlings are improperly deferential to and protective of him. If something goes wrong, it's attributed to the underlings, not the top man. If the top man holds up a red card and says it is white, the underlings will say it is white.

2. In Chinese Confucianism, fathers castrated their sons and then sent them to become servant-eunuchs in the royal court. This was literally true in China for a certain number of fathers and sons, but I also think it is metaphorically true of Confucianism as such.

3. Confucianism, because of its over-emphasis on the family, leads inexorably to nepotism.

4. Confucianism is inherently anti-democratic, anti-individual, anti-"outsider."

6. Because of its emphasis on family, tradition, and order, Confucianism is closed and inward-looking, rather than outward-looking.

7. Confucianism is inherently racist.

7. Progress comes about -- in the sciences, in the arts, in philosophy -- through throwing off and transcending what went before. In other words, it comes about through revolt and revolution. Confucianism abhors such revolt. Thus Confuciamism is an impediment to progress.

That will do for now. (I deliberately made the subject line stark and confrontational, but I also think it is more-or-less true.)

[Sam]

Lloyd,
I have no idea where these ideas come from. My reading of the Analects and Mencius comes to a very different view of Confucianism. Have you read Tu Wei-Ming's or Roger Ames and David Hall's interpretations of Confucius? They, too, come to very different conclusions. Let's just take your first point. Emperors, in Confucian perspective, were legitimated by the "Mandate of Heaven." Heaven here does not have the Western Christian meaning, but connotes a more general sense of destiny with no reference to a singular god. A ruler may gain the mandate, but he may also lose it. If an Emperor rules badly, and especially if that is manifest in the suffering of the people, he loses the mandate and he can be removed. Mencius is best on these points. There is also a very important expectation of reciprocity in both Confucius and Mencius. Superiors owe their subordinates respect and care. And subordiates are obliged to speak out (remonstrate) when superiors are doing the wrong thing. If the top man holds up a red card and says white, Confucius says that subordinates should tell the truth and say red.
And, please, before announcing that Confucius is evil learn something about what he actually said, not what others might invoke in his name.

[Renee Watabe]

This brings to mind a story I read called "The Empty Pot," about a contest held by the Emperor to determine his successor. He gave all the youths a seed to plant and nurture, stating that whoever grew the finest plant would then become the next ruler. On the appointed day, scores of young folk paraded forth with exotic and beautiful plants. There was one, holding an empty pot. The emperor stood in front of him and asked about his plant. The boy , in obvious distress, said that as hard as he tried, nothing would make his seed grow. The emperor looked pleased, and announced that the boy would be the next ruler, as the seeds he had given out were infertile.
I am not sure the source of the story, but I always loved it.

Renee

[Lloyd Eby]

I think we are talking past each other because we are looking at and talking about different things.

By "Confucianism" I mean the present-day social-political-ideological order that exists in important countries in the Orient -- I have in mind Korea and China, but I think some others would qualify too -- that have a Confucian heritage. This is what I had in mind when I used the admittedly incendiary accusation that Confucianism is evil.

If I understand you correctly, by "Confucianism" you mean the teachings and political-social order of Confucius himself. I do not claim that Confucianism, understood that way, is evil.

[Sam]

I would not call China today a "Confucian" society; and I would hesitate to call Korea that. Patriarchy seems stronger in Korea than China, but there has long been a strong spirit of rebellion in South Korea, which may not fit the stereotype suggested. If you are speaking specifically about the Unification Church, I really have no experience of it and cannot guess at its relationship to some sort of distorted "Confucianism".

[Chris Cuddihy]

Sam,

I'm wondering were Daoism falls on the guilt/shame spectrum. Although I "get" and accept your clarification about Confucianism, its not hard to see how the premise is made. Given, then, the skeletal dichotomy between the Confucian moral tool of shame and Judaic-Christian of guilt, where does Daoism fall? I suspect, that they are not too crazy about either of these negative reinforcements and rely on more positive sensibilities as genuine guides, but I've love to get your take on it.

[Sam]

Chris,
I think the Taoists would tell us to not worry about either. You'll notice in both Chuang Tzu and the Tao Te Ching a general rejection of overly strict ethical standards. What happens happens. Good things will happen, bad things will happen. It is better not to do bad things (interfering in another's life and, certainly, killing are frowned upon) but we cannot really stop bad people from doing bad things (though we can punish them after they have done bad things), so, to remember a silly old song: "Don't worry, be happy."