Confucianism and Corruption in the PRC

My recent post on how a Confucian might understand the corruption surrounding Wen Jiabao sparked a couple of comments that have pushed me to think a bit more about the topic.  But I am thinking more broadly about both Confucianism and corruption in China.

One comment, a rather knee-jerk rejection of my interpretation of Confucianism in this case, suggests that an overly stringent application of Confucian principles is useless:

But if such a "standard" is followed by politicians, there would essentially be no one working in government. Anywhere. Anytime. Even the best among human beings would be self-excluded from government office. Your inability to draw that implication is ghastly.

What strikes me immediately about this response is that it is, essentially, the same argument made by Han Feizi, the prominent Legalist writer (here's a pdf of an article on Han's critique of Confucianism).  In the book that bears his name, Han places Confucians among what he refers to as the "five vermin."  Not pulling any punches there.  Han says:

Confucius was one of the greatest sages of the world.  He perfected his conduct, made clear the Way, and traveled throughout the area within the four seas, but in all that area those who rejoiced in his benevolence, admired his righteousness, and were willing to become his disciples numbered only seventy.  For to honor benevolence is a rare thing, and to adhere to righteousness is hard.  Therefore, within the vast area of the world only seventy men became his disciples, and only one man - himself - was truly benevolent and righteous. (102)

 He emphasizes the number seventy because it illustrates how unrealistic Confucian expectations are.  Only seventy people seriously followed those principles, and that is clearly an insufficient number of administrators to manage the affairs of one medium-sized state, much less provide a more universal political guide.  Legalists, in short, reject Confucianism as being hopelessly idealistic and optimistic about human behavior.

Contemporary invocations of the Legalist rejection of Confucianism (whether they are intentional or not) raise the question (again, whether it is intended or not) of whether China is, or really ever has been, a "Confucian society."  For over two thousand years some Chinese people (Legalists, Mohists) have argued that Confucianism is a highfalutin ideal that does not reflect how life is really lived in China.  I think there is some truth in that statement.  But, unlike Legalists, I still believe that Confucianism can still function as a moral standard.  Perhaps it sets a very high bar, one that few of us, realistically, can reach.  Yet the point of such an exceptional benchmark is to inspire us to always try to do better in our moral lives.  We may never attain the full measure of Confucian morality, but we can continue to work to do better than before.  (In a way, we can see a similarity here in the person of Jesus.  Few of us would say we truly live as Jesus would have us live, but, still, we can strive to live up to that standard as best we can.  And, no, I do not mean to suggest in this analogy that Confucianism is just like Christianity; it's not....).

An irony here is that some - nationalists and fenqing - who might want to reject Confucianism (on essentially Legalist grounds) as impractical, also want to hold on to it as an element of tradition that distinguishes Chinese experience from the West.  Confucianism is thus used to assert a kind of Chinese exceptionalism that ultimately rejects that actual application of Confucian standards. In a sense, they want to have their Confucian cake and not eat it.

In any event, I would assert that Confucianism can be invoked as a contemporary moral standard, not just in China but in other non-Chinese contexts. (I better believe it since I just wrote a book that does just that...).  Impracticality is not an end to ethical debate.  It may be difficult to do the right thing, but difficulty does not make the right thing less right.

So, the next general question is: what would Confucius do (WWCD)?  What would he do when confronted with the kind of corruption that the Wen Jiabao case and so many other cases demonstrate?  The more specific question here is: is it wrong for family members to unfairly profit from a person's official position?  "Unfairly profit" denotes the various hidden-from-the-public techniques that are used to amass wealth based on proximity of positions of power (guanxi in common parlance) and not true merit or hard work.  

We should first point out that Wen Jiabao himself believes that such unfair profit is wrong. In March in a news conference at the end of the National People's Congress session, he pointedly called out "... increases in corruption and income disparity and a decline in the government’s credibility." And the Chinese Communist Party has rules that forbid the kind of activity Wen's family members allegedly have undertaken. 

But would a Confucian (I do not assume that Wen is a Confucian or motivated by Confucian values) have the same view?  Yes. At least we can come to that conclusion based on the texts of the Analects and Mencius. 

For Confucius, officials should not be thinking about material gain:

The Master said: "The noble-minded devote themselves to the Way, not to earning a living.  A farmer may go hungry, and a scholar may stumble into a good salary.  So it is that the noble-minded worry about the Way, not poverty and hunger. (Analects, Hinton, 15.31; other translations have this as 15.32)

"Way" (Dao) for Confucius is all about doing the right thing, enacting duty according to ritual to move toward humanity.  And he is clear: "noble-minded" people - and officials at all levels should strive to be noble-minded - should worry about doing the right thing, they should not worry about poverty.  Indeed, the Chinese phrase could serve as a guiding motto for corruption-fighting in the PRC today:

君子憂道不憂貧

Mencius, as usual, is more dramatic in making the same point.  When confronting Emperor Hui of Liang, who lives an extravagant life in the midst of poverty and inequality, he argues:

"There's plenty of juicy meat in your kitchen and plenty of well-fed horses in your stable," continued Mencius, "but the people here look hungry, and in the countryside they're starving to death.  You're feeding humans to animals.  Everyone hates to see animals eat each other, and an emperor is the people's father and mother - but if his government feeds humans to animals, how can he claim to be the people's father and mother? (Hinton, 1.4)

The contemporary analogues here might be meals at five star restaurants and Ferrari's in the garage.  The point is that leaders should not be feathering their own nests when there are people in their country that do not have sufficient material means to carry out their familial duties with requisite dignity.  And that is something that certainly applies to the PRC today.

What action should an official take if he or she discovers malfeasance in high places?  Speaking up and bearing witness and calling out the wrongdoers is certainly appropriate; indeed, that pretty much sums up Mencius's life.  But if things are bad and not getting better, a person in an official position should be willing to walk away from that position, to resign and thus call further attention to the venality.  Analects 18.4 suggests that Confucius himself did just that:

The men of Qi presented [the government of] Lu with a troupe of women musicians.  Ji Huanzi accepted them and for three days failed to appear at court.  Confucius left the state. (Watson)

On the face of it, Confucius here witnesses improper behavior - the women musicians are obviously an indulgence meant to distract the leaders of Qi from doing their public duty - and resigns his office as a result.  Further study, such as that by Annping Chin (chapter 1), reveals that this situation might have been a bit more complex.  But the writers of the Analects  want us to understand this episode as a matter of righteous resignation.  That is what a leader who is trying to live up to a Confucian moral standard would do.

And that is what Wen Jiabao should do, or should have done, if he truly cares about the kind of corruption he says he cares about.  My interlocutor is having none of this, however:

To think that by resigning on account of family members' getting rich would make his country better or reduce corruption is baseless.

It seems that the only reason for such a move is a kind of empty gesture.

In Confucian terms it would hardly be "baseless," since Confucius himself took this course of action.  But would it be simply an "empty gesture"?  It is likely that a Wen resignation would not structurally transform the PRC political economy, not in the near-term at least.  Yet, again from a Confucian point of view, certain actions ought to be taken regardless of our initial calculation of their political effectiveness.  Moreover, the Confucian belief in exemplary moral leadership would invest much more importance in a Wen resignation.  It would be an extraordinary thing.  Unprecedented, really.  And thus it would bring much, much greater attention to the problem of high-level corruption.  Perhaps it would spark some sort of longer term political change.  That, at least, is the belief of Confucius when he says in Analects 12.19:

The noble-minded have the integrity of wind, and the little people the integrity of grass.  When the wind sweeps over the grass it bends.

The actions of leaders like Wen Jiabao should be so movingly ethical that people will naturally follow, a moral charisma of sorts that sweeps everyone along.  That is what they should be but, alas, they are not, because Wen either does not care to do anything truly remarkable to counteract corruption or he lacks the courage to do so.

Another commenter raises an interesting point:

The question for me is whether he has try to set China in the right direction and benefitted the people overall. I think he succeeded to certain extent and leave it for his successor to further reform and transparency. He is a politician and constrained by history, and history will judge him. I do wish him well in his retirement.

This has a bit of a Mencian ring to it: a leader should be judged by how well he improves the material well-being of the people.  Wen has overseen rapid economic growth and, as is often stated, many, many Chinese people have risen out of absolute poverty as a result.  Those are good and laudable things.  But, I think a further Mencian consideration would be inequality.  How many people are being left behind?  How many have not benefited sufficiently from the booming economy?  If we believe that more effort needs to be undertaken to attend to the poor and disadvantaged, and that on-going high-level corruption distracts from that important work, then there would still be Confucian grounds for a Wen resignation.  Personally, I believe that that is the case and if Wen wanted to do the right Confucian thing he would resign.

Ultimately, however, I do not think Wen will resign.  He does not hold that strongly to a Confucian morality.  But that does not mean we cannot use that morality to judge his actions, or the actions of others, like Mitt Romney, or whomever.  Whether or not "Confucianism" exists in China or America or anywhere else is immaterial to the application of Confucian standards to the behavior of political leaders.

Comments

[melektaus]

There's absolutely nothing that is similar between my criticism and Han's of Confucianism. Nothing.

I have no problems with high Confucian standards. That wasn't what I criticized. Rather, you made some incredibly silly statements about responsibility (which is not the same as high moral standards) and other things as well.

Having high moral standards doesn't mean you ought to attribute responsibility to where it ain't due. Not even Confucius would have met your "Confucian" standards for what we know of his father he was worse than a corrupt individual. It simply doesn't follow that high moral standards for either oneself or others entails universally taking on responsibility for them and their actions.

Not even Jesus would carry that burden. There has to be room for freewill and PERSONAL responsibility.

We don't know if Wen played a role in helping his family get rich. Indeed, there are reasons to count against this suspicion and even he might have even gone against it. Moreover, even if you ought to always attribute the faults of your family member to yourself (which is highly implausible) it still doesn't follow that you ought to then take certain actions such as resigning from office under Confucian or any kind of moral standards. Many considerations and assumption are left in the dark here.

You also used a false analogy by comparing murder (the action of Shun's father) to getting rich (the actions of Wen's family).

Now it seems plausible to me that at least some of Wen's family may have gotten rich through corruption since China is an incredibly corrupt country.

But

1. You offer no evidence of this

2. and even if true it still wouldn't show that murder and corruption are the moral equivalents

3. it wouldn't show that Wen's position in the modern Chinese society is comparable to Shun's in his society.

4. or that even Mencius meant for his passage to be interpreted as one about taking on responsibility of a family member (rather it's actually a passage about he filial duties of the son in taking care of his father but also not getting in the way of his just punishment).

[Ngok Ming Cheung]

For the past 2,200 years Confucius was the official philosophy of the ruling elites. Yet Han Feizi's philosophy was the real one at work. I do rank him above Confucius and I think People's Republic of China does also. Mao was trying to change human nature by purging self from it and installing his virtuous man by various campaigns and Cultural Revolution and failed. Teng Hsio Ping changed direction by his whichever color of cat that works with profit motive that pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and also its side effect of income inequality and corruption. Wen and the Chinese leadership is not unaware of these problems and slowly to find solutions for them. No one man can solve them by feat ot resignation. I am sure some of Wen's reative got rich because of his position. That's more result of centuries old social relation of China than on Wen's conscious decision per se and it will take time for the rule of law and transparency to take root.

[melektaus]

Sam thinks that I thought his post silly because it sets the bar too high (which no doubt is true). But my view is actually that it sets the bar for people to clear the wrong hurdles. His post is just a knee-jerk reaction without even understanding my basic criticism.

I see now that he is reframing the issue to one of "moral standards" instead of moral responsibility. But that would make his previous claims even more ludicrous.

That's because it's quite plausible that the higher the moral standards you expect of people the MORE you'd also expect personal responsibility from them and the LESS likely you are willing to "assume responsibility" on their behalf. It gets more ludicrous the more he defends it.

[skc]

What we have is the temporal correlation between Wen being at the top and many members of his extended family enriching themselves to grotesque levels. And we all know that correlation does not prove causality. In order to know if it was all just coincidence, or if nefarious corrupt strings were being pulled by people in high places, there would have to be a forensic audit of the paper trail. How convenient then that the government that Wen helps to lead doesn't have the stipulation for such an examination, or perhaps even routine surveillance on an ongoing basis. I suppose it allows him to cling to plausible deniability, though I suspect it is more plausible to some than to others.

It's true that China is outrageously corrupt, and if some of Wen's family turn out to be as corrupt as the next guy, that shouldn't come as a shock to anybody. But I guess all that blustery talk from Wen about fighting corruption wasn't meant to amount to much of anything, if he couldn't even keep his own house in order.

[skc]

To M,
I imagine Sam can clarify his own point. But to me, it seems he's talking about whether Wen is living up to Confucian standards. Whether his relatives are living up to said standards or not isn't even being discussed here.

If i held myself to lofty moral standards, would I "expect" you to? Nope. I might hope you would choose to, of your own accord. But that's up to you, and not something I'd control. There would be no such expectation.

Also, if Wen had high moral standards, and even if he expected his family to share similar standards, their failure to do so needn't mean that Wen is "less likely" to assume responsibility. I believe that's the crux of Sam's point: if Wen were a true confucian, he would in fact fall on that sword for his family. That Wen appears unlikely to do so seems to be why Sam contests that Wen ain't so confucian. Now, as you say, that confucian standard seems to be a very tall order, one that few can achieve. All the same, Wen ain't one of those few.

[melektaus]

Oh, so high Confucian [sic] standards are applied only to Wen and yet not to his family. Right. Makes far more sense because Wen should be singled out for such standards because, well,...just because Sam doesn't like him. You're not making sense as usual. And you didn't even understand my basic criticism at all.

High moral standards, no matter Confucian or otherewise does not imply "assuming responsibility" (in Sam's words) where it ain't due. There is such thing as personal responsibility and the higher the moral stnadards you have for people the higher you ought also to expect personal responsibility from them and not expect them to assume responsibility for others when they had no role.

[melektaus]

I quote Sam's own words from the above post to show just how confused skc is.

"But, unlike Legalists, I still believe that Confucianism [sic] can still function as a moral standard.

...

Few of us would say we truly live as Jesus would have us live, but, still, we can strive to live up to that standard as best we can."

So Sam applies his "high moral standards" to everyone. So if it applies to Wen, it will apply to his family (and why not? They are well into adulthood, with no indication of abnormal development). So it is silly why he would want Wen to "assume responsibility" for those whom he has such lofty "moral standards." He ought to have them accept responsibility for their own actions if his moral standards for them are so high.

skc can't even begin to understand this very simple criticism...

[melektaus]

Sam also seems to confuse guanxi with corruption. He ought to know better. While detrimental to society and an obsticle to meritocracy, guanxi is not technically a kind of corruption (though it may lead to it). It's actually a kind of favoritism.

[Sam]

Melektaus seems to be getting caught up in a confusion of his own making. I did not suggest that Wen's family bears no responsibility for their actions. Of course they do. But that was not the point of the post, which was to think about Wen's responsibility. Wen is in a particular position, a very powerful one. His family is benefiting corruptly from his position (this is an empirical question which, as SKC suggests, rests on correlation. But the determined stance by the Party to repress information about this issues also implies it is trying to hide something. So, until we have better information I will continue to assume some level of corruption is involved in the Wen family fortune). Wen has publicly taken a rhetorical stand against such corruption. But he hasn't done anything about the corruption closest to him.
If you are a Confucian that is a problem, because actions should match words. Wen's problem is that he hasn't really done anything about corruption.
From a Confucian perspective Wen should assume some (not all, but some) responsibility for his family's corruption. Confucianism is not liberalism, it does not rest on narrow self-interest and personal rights. It emphasizes collective interests and social and familial responsibilities.
M's critique suggests Confucianism is not applicable to contemporary China. So, I guess he would want to consign it to the dustbin of history, or something like that...

[melektaus]

Wrong again. The confusion, I'm afraid, is all yours and skc's.

I never said you claimed Wen's family don't deserve any responsibility. I said it was silly for Wen to "assume responsibility" on their behalf.

These are your own posts/positions so you ought to know better.

This type of behavior, (perhaps you aren't even aware of it?) of building up strawperson arguments seems to be very common among your arguments.

This whole blog entry was based on one such strawperson where you falsely thought my argument was because the "Confucian" bar was set too high when in fact it was silly because it was set in the wrong direction (towards taking on responsibility for others without any evidence showing responsibility was due, but by mere family association which is indeed asinine and silly).

Confucianism isn't "liberalism" of course, But even more sure, is that it ain't as silly as your comments make it out to be.

[melektaus]

Also, my intuition here is opposite with your regarding corruption playing a role in Wen' family's wealth.

If the New York times, with their investigative prowess and resources were not able to uncover any shred of evidence of corruption after all this time, chances are the evidence doesn't exist. And where the evidence don't exist after an investigation of the sort, it is more reasonable to believe than not that the family members got rich without corruption. These are serious accusations. They need evidence. Evidence which you don't have.

I tend to think that guanxi probably played some role. It is a more likely and obvious answer. And though bad for society, to make an analogy with it with murder is well, silly and asinine.

[skc]

To M,
man, you are just like a kid, quick to shoot from the hip at all times without necessarily reading first.

No, high Confucian standards are not only applied to Wen. But Wen is the person Sam is talking about. Why? Gee, I don't know, maybe cuz he's the #2 guy in China? His family are just a bunch of nobody douchebags...apparently stinking rich nobody douchebags to be sure, but still nobody's. If you want to say his family ain't so Confucian either, knock yourself out. But i think Sam is just talking about Wen.

You also seem to confuse misunderstanding of your criticism with simply disagreeing with it. You really need to work on grasping that difference. Take your time.

Like I already said (and which you clearly didn't read), a person having high moral standards might HOPE someone else does too, but there's no basis for EXPECTING them to. You can control your own standards; you can't control someone else's. That seems like a pretty basic concept.

Sam does apply this standard to everyone, but he doesn't expect them to meet it. He's silent on whether he feels Wen's family have met it or not. Why? Because Wen's family wasn't his focus; Wen was. And Sam made his case that Wen hasn't met it. He "ought to have them accept responsibility for their own actions if his moral standards for them are so high"?? Sam's not obligated to do anything of the sort. He could choose to, but chose not to...cuz his post was about Wen, and not his family. Do you detect a recurring theme here? Cuz you should.

Guanxi is not technically the same as corruption, if you take guanxi as an exchange of favours and corruption as an exchange of money. In a very narrow construct, they're different. For all practical purposes in China, they're on the same narrow spectrum.

As for evidence, there is only correlation. But as Sam says, we're dealing with China. Saying that the NYT's inability to gather substantive evidence of wrongdoing means there's no evidence of wrongdoing in existence is naive at best. This is the same outfit that denies TAM ever happened. So I would take the standard rules of evidence with a large shaker of salt.

[melektaus]

Your petty insults are just your way of compensating for a lack of substance.

Sam was applying his "high standards" to everyone, Wen's family included. And why not, is Wen's family any more special than the rest of humanity who must all assume responsibility for themselves and not have someone assume responsibility on their behalf by mere virtue of family association?. Your lack of reading skills, as consistently displayed in your comments, show that you cannot engage in this conversation in an intelligent manner and don't even know what the points of discussion is about. It's clear from Sam's post thyat he was talking about all of "humanity" including Wen's family, not just Wen.

Sam's silly claims which he attributes as Confucian shows no evidence that any Confucian philosopher would have supported them. In fact they would have seen them as barbaric. Sam's claims which, he must assume sole responsibility, are as stupid as Jiang Qing's and Daniel Bell's who claim that the PRC ought to have people in positions of power by mere virtue of their family association with Confucius.

I believe that both you and Sam's inability to see the stupidity of claiming that assuming responsibility of someone by mere virtue of family association is both intellectual and moral.

[skc]

For the third time (but considering your type, it will hardly be the last time), Sam says those high standards could apply to everyone, but in this case his subject of interest is Wen. It's amazing, and amusing, that you fail to grasp the concept despite repeated explicit guidance. But as I always say, obfuscation is the game you guys like to, and need to, play, so you do what you gotta do.

" It's clear from Sam's post thyat he was talking about all of "humanity" including Wen's family, not just Wen. "
---is that right? Here is what Sam said at Nov 9 0855hrs: " I did not suggest that Wen's family bears no responsibility for their actions. Of course they do. But that was not the point of the post, which was to think about Wen's responsibility. Wen is in a particular position, a very powerful one."
Now, considering it's you we're talking about, it is highly plausible you didn't even read it. It's also highly probable you didn't understand it. And it's quite possible you simply chose to ignore it cuz it torpedoes everything else you've been groaning on about. But i think I would go with what Sam interprets as his intent, rather than yours. Considering that he wrote the post to start with and all. But that's just me.

Now, you seem to disagree with Sam's position. That is your prerogative. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion, + $2.50 (or whatever the going rate is for transit in your area), should be sufficient to get you on a bus. If you require assistance to discern the value I place on your "opinion", don't be afraid to ask. I believe your inability to grasp and tolerate a difference of opinion is genetic, and possibly metabolic. Or maybe we should blame your upbringing.

[melektaus]

Basic english lesson for skc

"expect"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expect?s=t

"Synonyms
Expect, anticipate, *hope,* await..."

Having high moral epxectations doesn't necessarily mean thinking it likely anyone will meet them. In this case, expect is used like "hope" or more accurately, "demand." But his deficiencies in reading and basic English mirrors his personal moral deficiencies. How can someone be so ignorant and yet so arrogant?

"When a gentlemen doesn't know you'd expect him to remain silent."

-Analects