When "Confucianism" isn't really Confucianism

Alistair J. Nicholas, an expatriate pr exec in Beijing, pens a piece in the China Daily that reflects upon cultural differences between China and the West, especially in corporate workplaces.  There are some useful insights into how to get things done and not make a fool of yourself.  But from the very first paragraph he falls into the unfortunate practice of using the term "Confucianism" as a stand-in for contemporary Chinese culture:

The hierarchical nature of Chinese society and the role of hierarchy in the realm of modern social structures defy explanation to Westerners who come from more egalitarian societies. Even after 12 years of living in China, I am confounded by the continuance of this most Confucian inheritance of China's past.

This is a airly typical statement, hearkening back to the Gellner quote above: Confucianism, in practice (and I want to stress that here: what was practiced as "Confucianism" diverged from certain ethical expectations of "Confucianism"...) authorized hierarchical social and political relationships.  So far nothing out of the ordinary here.

But problems set in when we get statements like this:

Of course, there is a downside to China's strict hierarchical structures in business: namely, that merit may be overlooked - or expected to be overlooked - in the rise to the top of the pyramid.

Confucianism, of course, envisions a meritocracy of sorts, an ethical meritocracy: the morally superior should rule and lead.  And we know who the morally superior are not because of what school they went to or who their daddy is but by their actual performance of right actions.  Moral achievement is not existential, it is performative.  Thus, if hierarchy is obstructing meritocracy that is a sign of the failure of Confucianism, not its consequence.  

Of course, we could argue that Confucianism is still culpable because, in the first instance it authorized hierarchy, which then goes on, in an un-Confucian way, to obstruct meritocracy.  But this strikes me as an unfair critique.  Confucianism stands against unmeritorious hierarchy: this is very much the life's work of Mencius...

Another problem emerges with this statement:

But Chinese hierarchy can result in other unfavorable outcomes if not fully understood. For example, Chinese are reluctant to question or challenge their superiors because they have been brought up to respect their elders and others in authority.

While respect for elders is certainly a Confucian idea, it is not unqualified. If elders and/or superiors are doing the wrong thing, children and subordinates should respectfully point out the problem.  While passages from the Analects could be cited here, I like this excerpt from Mencius:

If you don’t resent a parent’s fault when it’s serious, you’re treating parents like strangers.  And if you resent a parent’s fault when it’s slight, you’re treating parents with abandon.  Treating them like strangers, treating them with abandon – either is no way for a child to honor parents. (12.3)

Children, to really honor parents, should treat them as neither strangers nor with abandon.  They should let parents know when there are problems.

In any event, whatever traditional Chinese culture was, or contemporary Chinese culture is, it cannot be simply reduced to "Confucianism," because there are aspects to the culture, old and new, that clearly run against the grain of Confucian morality. 

Chinese culture has always been more than "Confucianism."

Comments

[Christopher vanDyck]

Yes... my impression, upon reading the analects and a bit of other stuff from the time is that the glorification of the place of the monarchs, and of their hierarchy is really just political necessity for Mencius and Confucius. There's this gentle prod where these academics are using flattery in order to try to get the kings to behave responsibly and gently and kindly in respect to their people.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that what these scholars actually believed was that meritocracy would work like cream which rises to the top of the milk, naturally.

We should always read between the lines of ancient literature - that's where you start gaining the real insights... you have to understand the context within which the person was speaking or writing.

I am blown away when I look at Mencius' and Confucius' writings this way - because it's the only ancient text I've yet been exposed to where I see this really transparent, clear-minded sense of a generous spirit. It's so much the opposite of religious texts from the West and Middle East which are in large part just statements of sycophantry toward the kings of the day.

[Matt Cooper]

Good post, Mr Crane! I very much think that it needs to be emphasised that not all Chinese culture (particularly contemporary Chinese culture) is Confucian - though it is one of the three most important intellectual traditions which has historically shaped the Chinese way of thinking. And it does very much bear noting that Confucianism is not a free pass for all hierarchies or all authorities per se, but only for those hierarchies and authorities which make human dignity their reason for existing.

That said, I think one cannot be too careful in using words like 'meritocracy' in application to Confucianism - particularly in the context of other Chinese philosophies! The language of rewards and punishments according to merit was the very trademark of Han Fei's Legalist philosophy: an office may be filled by anyone who fits the job description and who acts in a way most suitable to the benefit of the ruler. I certainly grant that there are 'meritocratic' elements within Confucianism, but these are tempered heavily by a virtue-ethical or care-ethical framework which judges 'merit' on the basis of how one treats those related to him. So, yes, in Confucianism it very much does matter 'who [your] daddy is' (or who your mommy is, who your brothers and sisters are, who your friends are, who your lord is and so on) - insofar as it informs how you honour them and how you behave towards them. As a result, there are really two different concepts of 'meritocracy' which deserve to be parsed from each other.

I really do have to object to the idea, though (in response to Mr vanDyck), that the religious texts of the West and Middle East are sycophantic to political power. Jesus of Nazareth was not executed by Pontius Pilate for his obsequies to the Roman Empire, after all; nor were any of the prophets who came before him murdered because they were too sympathetic either to the Davidic line of kings or to the Babylonians who sent them into exile. The teachings of Christianity are possibly the most subversively anti-authoritarian ideology mankind has yet come up with, since in the doctrine of original sin lies the repudiation of the idea that any great concentration of power should be given a pass from scrutiny or criticism.