Confucianism as a State Ideology? I Don't Think So....

     A good post over at The China Beat by Xujun Eberlein on contemporary Chinese Confucian thinker Jiang Qing (yes, the name has the same English transliteration as Mao's infamous wife).   Here are a couple of Eberlein's grafs:

In his books and articles on Political Confucianism, Jiang Qing calls for a restoration of Confucianism as the state ideology, as it had been in many dynasties. Further, he outlines a Confucian political structure strongly distinct from both Soviet-style communism and Western-style democracy.

Democracy is Westernized and imperfect in nature, Jiang Qing points out. If applied to China, a western style democratic system would have only one legitimacy – popular will, or civil legitimacy. Such uni-legitimacy operates on the quantity of votes, regardless of the moral implications of decisions taken. Since human desire is selfish by nature, those decisions can be self serving for a particular majority's interest. Because of this, Jiang Qing argues, civil legitimacy alone is not sufficient to build or keep a constructive social order.

       Two things come to mind here, by way of critique.  First, while it is true that certain institutions and practices of modern democratic politics can be said to have arisen and developed in something called "the West," it is not true that democracy is simply a "Western" thing.  "West" is as problematic a construction as "East" or "Orient."  It operates on too abstract a level of historical analysis to be very useful in analyzing and understanding political dynamics.  And it is as politicized as any other such generalization.  It is used by critics of democracy to link popular demands for more open and participatory politics with imperialism.  It thus frames Chinese or Vietnamese or North Korean democrats as unpatriotic (I do not mean to suggest that his is Jiang Qing's intention; but the broader discourse of "The West" creates this effect).   A further ramification of the use of "The West" is to distract attention away from historical and contemporary democratic practices in Asia (are Taiwanese not "Chinese"?  Are Koreans not "Easterners"?  Are Indians not "Asian"?) and also glosses over the history and current manifestations of anti-democracy in the "West."  Overall, a high cost to pay intellectually for a fatuous over-generalization. 

      But there is a second, and I think more important, point to be made here.  Jiang is calling for the establishment of Confucianism as a "state ideology."  This strikes me as impossible under contemporary conditions of a reformed and globalized China.  

     Today, China is increasingly multicultural.  By this I mean that the cultural expressions of Chinese-ness have multiplied rapidly.  Not that long ago, when I started studying China, it would have been absurd to use the term "Chinese rock and roll."  That musical form was obviously "Western" with no historical roots in China, something utterly alien to a Chinese sensibility.  Now, whatever one thinks of it aesthetically, Chinese rock is commonplace.  Chinese people play rock and roll, they express the genre in distinctly Chinese ways, and they add to the global repertoire of rock and roll more generally.  It is, at this point, absurd to assert that this is not a facet of contemporary Chinese experience.  We could make the same point about many, many kinds of cultural practices, from sports to theater to literature to visual art.

     The political implications of this Chinese multiculturalism include the impossibility of containing modern Chinese-ness within any single ideology.  Confucianism cannot serve as the singular state ideology because no system of thought or philosophy can so serve.  Confucianism can provide us with a unique perspective on modern issues but it cannot capture the totality of modernity.  Neither can socialism or liberalism (which is not, by the way, the "state ideology" of the US) or conservatism or whatever have you.  Globalization, which brings constant movement of ideas and cultural practices, makes this even more impossible.  

    Jiang's lament is familiar to many intellectuals faced with the instabilities caused by globalized cultural flows.  But instead of searching for an idealized stasis, which can never be established, it might be better to just open ourselves to constant cultural change.  Conservatives in the US must learn this same lesson.  We're all in the same global cultural boat, why not just go along for the ride....

Comments

[Zoomzan]

The biggest problem with Confucianism as a state ideology is that the state will impose its own version of Confucianism on all Confucianists.

[Zoomzan]

There's actually a lot I want to say on this subject. I've contemplated it for a long time. But I'll limited myself, since I have work to do.

There's a strong striking contrast between Western (American, Canadian, Western European) attitude toward religion and Chinese attitude toward religion.

In the West, people are far more willing to take religion into their own hands. Westerners are, unselfconsciously, culturally and religiously resourceful. If they don't like a certain authority's teachings, they will adopt only a portion of it, and then reshape that portion according to their purpose.

You can observe this in Western Christianity and New Age. Anyone can write a book on Christian devotions. Anyone can write a book on the New Age. As long as someone thinks it is interesting and pays for the book.

In China, most people look to scholars to make religious decisions. There's much less willingness to make innovations for oneself, and to accept other people's innovations.

In part, this is what the Yudan controversy was about. (Of course, we also have to consider the jealousy of the scholars.)

The scholars say, Yudan's teachings are erroneous. They are erroneous because they deviate from Confucius's original intentions, etc. Some Chinese people buy into the scholars' arguments.

Now, in the West, people would ask, by whose authority is truth judged? They would say, Confucius's original intentions are not necessarily important, etc. If Yudan's formulation works for her, and if it works for some people, then all the more power to them.

I'm decidedly populist in this area. Religion, culture, and traditions belong to the people. They are not to be dictated by scholars, but are revealed by Heaven to the sincere seeker.

Traditional Chinese Religion in Hong Kong and Taiwan has accumulated many innovations over the last fifty years. And that's a good thing. True tradition is organic. It is unselfconscious. True tradition is a people's spiritual expression in the absence of state coercion.

State intervention will kill everything beautiful in our traditions. The only people who benefit are scholars, whose status will increase on account of their monopoly over religious interpretations.

In the West, anyone can discourse on his personal understanding of the Bible. Whatever your upbringing, your academic qualifications, your social status. What we need in China, is to get back to this culture by the people for the people. I pray that one day in China, even the lowliest cab-driver can give his personal interpretations and Mencius, and people will listen to him, and judge his teachings by their usefulness, rather than arbitrary standards set by so-called scholars.

Indeed, culture is always created by people, such as ancient rituals, martial arts, and traditional Chinese medicine. Culture is also intended for the people - Wang Yangming, for instance, wrote in the vernacular, because he intended his teachings to be applied by common folks in daily life.

Unfortunately, whenever the state has too much power, it will try to coopt culture. It in fact steals the people's inheritance and then sells it as its own. But whereas culture in the hands of the people is living and full of soul, beneath the boots of the state it is dead and rotting.

[Simon]

Sam,

It may surprise you but I actually agree with you this time. I know, Wow! And I agree with Zoomzan to a certain degree.

Instead of restoring orthodox Confucianism, how about restoring the One Hundred Schools of Thought that prevailed during the Warring States Period. The cut and thrust of the marketplace of ideas will sift out the philosophies that work, and those that don't. And as well all know, Confucianism failed miserably during those times.

But don't get me wrong, despite what I've said in the past, I'm not particularly anti-Confucian, in the sense the Communists were during the Cultural Revolution. I just think that Chinese philosophies encompass so much more than what Confucius wrote. I would liken Ancient Chinese Thought to a jewel, with many facets, and Confucianism, Legalism, Mohism, Taoist, Yangism, etc, etc, are all but facets of this jewel. And this is where I suppose I would disagree with Zoomzan. There is an Orthodoxy that should be adhered to. Namely, the Orthodoxy of this multi-faceted Jewel, what I would call Zhou-ism, after the Zhou Dynasty, from whence all these Schools of Thought emerged. Some may have an afinity to one philosophy or another (I certainly do!), but all should be considered Orthodox Chinese thought.

Therefore China, and Chinese people should adhere to one of these philosophies, and reject all that is not of China, ... ie. Marxist-Leninism, Liberal Democracy, Islamism, Fascism, Christianity, etc. (with perhaps the exception of Buddhism of course).

And speaking as a partisan of the School of Law, why anyone would restore Confucianism is beyond me, ... everyone knows that it was Legalism that fulfilled destiny and finally unified China, thus satisfying one of Confucius' dreams of One China. And everyone knows even the founder of the Han Dynasty thought little of Confucian scholars, the only reason they succeed was insinuating themselves into the household of the Han imperial family as royal tutors during the minority of Han Wu Ti.

Okay, gotta get back to work!!

[Allan Lian]

"Instead of restoring orthodox Confucianism, how about restoring the One Hundred Schools of Thought that prevailed during the Warring States Period. The cut and thrust of the marketplace of ideas will sift out the philosophies that work, and those that don't. And as well all know, Confucianism failed miserably during those times."

Right, let us bring back the chaos of wars and confusion of thoughts, shall we, since the Chinese, for the past two millennia or so, had never really understood which ones were the better doctrines?

"... everyone knows that it was Legalism that fulfilled destiny and finally unified China, thus satisfying one of Confucius' dreams of One China. And everyone knows even the founder of the Han Dynasty thought little of Confucian scholars, the only reason they succeed was insinuating themselves into the household of the Han imperial family as royal tutors during the minority of Han Wu Ti."

Based on your above statements, I suggest you do some more homework on ancient Chinese history - try the Records of the Historian (Shiji) or the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chun Chiu).

Out of curiosity, Simon, who is considered everyone?

[Justsomeguy]

I think your overall approach is too post-modern. Most nations do have some sort of a guiding narrative, and various political parties/movements within nations have very strong and clear narratives. So why not use Confucianism as the Chinese national narrative? You seem to think that democracy and modern western political ideals are somehow a neutral, tofu-like base that can and ought be applied to every situation while neglecting the notion that the ideals of democracy and multiculturalism are themselves rather powerful narratives. By what right should they be imposed and others ignored?

I don't see why, even within a globalized world, Confucianism can't serve as a national ideology. As you've noted elsewhere, while the ideas espoused by Chinese philosophy are strongly Chinese, they are not exclusively Chinese -- otherwise this site wouldn't exist. So why shouldn't China try to bring the narrative of Confucianism to the world?

I mean, let's turn this around a little bit. A generation or so ago it would have been absurd to talk about American Confucianism. Outside of immigrant enclaves, the term just doesn't make sense. But now we've got "Boston Confucians" who manage to be both American and Confucian without any conflict what-so-ever.

Would you object if the American music scene sought to leave its current pop-obsessed nature behind and return to rock-and-roll? Certainly the rock-and-roll that it would try and restore would be shaped by different sensibilities than those that originally gave birth to it, but so what? It could still represent a huge step forward musically. Same idea with Confucianism in China.