Green Confucius

     A few weeks ago I posted a response to a piece from the blog Western Confucian which quoted Pan Yue, a Chinese environmental protection administrator, arguing that ancient Chinese philosophy is especially good in respecting the natural environment.  I expressed some skepticism at the basic assertion.  It was a hasty effort on my part and, in light of comments from readers, I need to develop the point further.   I am moved to do this today, finally, after being in and out of town over the past couple of weeks, by the big multimedia spread in the NYT today on China's environmental crisis.

     In my earlier post, I suggested that Confucianism would accept man's dominance of nature, based on the subordination of animals to social interests in the Analects.   I further stated that, if there were a contradiction between maintaining one's social duties and the environment, the former would win out over the latter.  If some trees had to be cleared to allow for farming, for example, to feed the family, the family would, by Confucian logic, win out over the trees.

     One of my commenters, JustSomeGuy, pushed back , reminding me that  Confucius had a strong personal  sense of environmental responsibility, as suggested in these two passages from the Analects:

"The Master fished with a line but not with a net; when shooting he did not aim at a resting bird."

"The Master said: 'To conduct the government of a state of a thousand chariots there must be religious attention to business and good faith, economy in expenditure and love of the people, and their employment on public works at the proper seasons.'"

 I think it is right to make these points, particularly in light of the horrendous air and water pollution that now plagues China.

     Indeed, I think it is true that Confucianism assumes a certain limitation on human dominance of the environment.  While the defense of social duties might be primary to environmental protection at the level of the family, the key problem these days, not just in China but every modern society, is a loss of proportion and balance.  A Confucian might focus criticism on the pursuit of profit.  The problem in China is not families doing what they must to enact duty and ritual; rather the problem is hyper-growth, fueled by coal, and aimed at high profits for Chinese and foreign businesses.  Profit has infected the relationship of man and environment and, ultimately, has undermined the ability of many Chinese people to protect their social relationships (think of all of the health problems that have harmed families as a result of pollution).

    I think my initial skepticism of the assertion that ancient Chinese philosophy is basically green was driven by two impulses: first, it seems too easy a claim.  Of course, in earlier times, before industrial pollution, Chinese and other ancient world-views, assumed that clean water and air would not be threatened.  The trade-offs between human activity and environmental degradation were not as stark, the costs not as high, as they are now. 

        But, secondly, I was also repelled by the source of the argument.  Although I respect Pan Yue and believe that he has done good work in warning about China's environmental degradation, I am always wary of nationalist uses of Chinese philosophy.  Few things are more harmful to the modern application of ancient Chinese thought than facile nationalist claims of the superiority of Chinese traditions.  Such efforts are often designed to bolster the legitimacy of current power holders and, thus, distort philosophy in the interest of political authority.  Confucianism and Taoism both hold within them strong critiques of authoritarian abuses of power, topics that defenders of the political status quo do not want to recognize.  But, even though we have to be on the lookout for such distortions, I was too quick in rejecting Pan's main point.

     In sum, then, I agree that there is a basic greenness at the heart of Confucianism.  If current leaders in China took Confucianism seriously (i.e. as something more than a legitimating device for their continued hold on power) they would recognize that the drive for profit is ruining their country, and the allure of vanity (all those Chinese consumers buying all those cars and things) and fetishism of commodities (a good, old Marxist idea!), are impelling the destruction of their environment.

    For more on this issue, see this piece by Mary Evelyn Tucker, as suggested by JustSomeGuy.

Comments

[The Western Confucian]

Confucian (and even moreso Taoist) "environmentalism" is healthier than its Western counterpart because it sees Man as part of Nature, not in opposition to her.

In The Unsettling of America by Wendell Berry, the "Sage of Kentucky" draws our attention to Chinese landscapes, and notes that in every painting amongst the magestic mountains and streams there is invariably a man or men or a little house. Man is in harmony with Nature. The great error of "conservationism" in our civilization is to see Nature as something to be set aside, and kept "pure" from human contact.

[The Western Confucian]

Here's the great man in his own words:

"Old Chinese landscapes reveal, among towering mountains, the frail outline of a roof or a tiny human figure passing along a road on foot or horseback. These landscapes are almost always populated. There is no implication of dehumanized interest in a nature for 'its own sake.' What is represented is a world in which human beings belong, but which does not belong to human beings in any tidy economic sense; the Creation provides a place for humans, but it is even greater than humanity and within it even great men are small. Such humility is the consequence of accurate insight, ecological in its bearing, not a pious deference to 'spiritual' value."

[Zoomzan]

The above quotation is very insightful. I feel it confirms for me even more the commonality amongst the diverse ancient peoples, because I'm just about to read the Golden Chain of Homer. As some of you may know, the ancient Platonists and Aristelians viewed man as a link in the great chain of beings, which begins from minerals, then ascends through vegetables, animals, humans, up to gods and finally the supreme Good.

This also reminds me of the Jain theory that plants which accumulate merit reincarnate as animals, which then reincarnate as humans, until they are liberated. Reincarnation, of course, is always a big problem, because Pythagoras disputed the possibility of reincarnating as animals. And of course some people say that there are multiple souls, all of which go to a different place.

The above ideas were applied in practice by European alchemists, who sought to transmute the various forms of the mineral, vegetable, and animal worlds. The basic idea is that they assist nature's processes (for the diverse creations to perfect themselves), rather than enforcing human will.

[Michelle Hudson]

The affects of greenhouse gas ozone, which has been increasing near Earth's surface since 1850, could seriously cut into crop yields and spur global warming this century, scientists reported on Wednesday. For more information http://www.lifeofearth.blogspot.com

[Zoomzan]

I recently read Straw Dogs by John Gray. As suggested by the title, it is full of Taoist references.

One key theme of this book is that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals, that all artifices (technology, politics, economics) merely enable humans' rapacious nature. While artifices accumulate, true wisdom cannot be passed on. Ignorance of this fact produces the various religious and secular myths of progress. While the Christian myth left salvation in the murky water of theology, secular quests for social progress lead to unpredented catastrophes. John Gray suggests that we shed the illusion that we can somehow master our future, and instead take our cues from animals, who know how to live better than us.

We cannot contain our current proliferation of artifices (genetic engineering, nuclear weaponry), because the world consists of many warring nations. All advances in artifices will fall into the hands of criminal gangs, corporate interests, and secretive government programs. Neither can we, as a whole, check our continuing exploitation of nature - because humans are by nature rapacious. Therefore, the only plausible end in our engagement with nature is a Malthusian backlash, where nature rebalances herself through climate change.

John Gray is critical of all secular traditions, including neoconservatism, neoliberalism, capitalism, fascism, socialism, communism, interventionism, humanism, atheism. He also criticises many religious traditions, except Taoism. It appears that many Amazon reviewers, as well as literary critics, don't get the Taoist references. Nevertheless, this book has received high praises from many critics.

I highly recommend this book. I don't agree with everything John Gray says. In fact, I dispute his interpretation of most religions. Nevertheless, this is the most exciting book I've read this year. It was so exciting I finished this book at my local Chapters in one setting. It is written in aphorisms, in the style of Nietzsche and Eric Hoffer.

[Sam]

Thanks for the comments. I agree that ancient Chinese, and perhaps ancient people more generally, had much greater humility in the face of nature than do modern people, Chinese included. But that did not stop ancient Chinese, even very early on, from working hard to transform nature for their own purposes. Think of the ancient water works near Chengu (Dujiangyan) or, of course, the Grand Canal. In a way all of the various walls of the Great Wall are an example of man shaping nature (in this case the mountains) to serve certain human ends. So, yes, I agree that there is a strong environmental sensibility, especially in Taoism but also in Confucianism. Yet this runs parallel to, and never fully overwhelms a powerful strain of human control and domination over nature in Chinese historical experience.
And Zoomzan, thanks for the book recommendation.