The Useless Tree

Ancient Chinese Philosophy in the New York Times

As you have probably noticed, I regularly complain that ancient Chinese thought rarely breaks through into contemporary American consciousness. So, I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I sat down with my second cup of coffee and took up my hard copy (is newsprint "hard copy"?) of the Sunday New York Times (one of the few rituals I practice in my life) to find right there on the first page, this sentence:

The research topics are formidable and include the cardinal virtue of ren in Confucius’s “The Analects,”...

(Nice to see the link to Robert Eno's translation there in the electronic version).  The story is about a new means of applying to college being undertaken by Bard College: prospective students can write essays instead of taking the SATs and the like.  A great idea!  Made even greater by the inclusion of a question on The Analects.  The folks over at Warp, Weft, and Way have also noted, with approval, this modest advance of Chinese philosophy into wider publish circulation. 

It is not very common for Chinese thought to make it into the pages of the New York Times, and even rarer for such a citation on the front page in a general news story.  So, imagine my surprise when I turned my attention to the Sports section and, lo and behold, a second mention of Chinese philosophy turns up.  This time it was Daoism:

Mariano Rivera understood what Steve Jobs, Lao Tzu and Bruce Lee understood: that simplicity is an art and a strength, a source of joy and beauty and power.

I admit this second reference is not very much to go on. There is no further explication of how Rivera might embody certain Daoist ideas, but only a vague sort of parallel drawn between Lao Tzu and Zen.  Something about minimalism, I guess. More could be said, of course, and has (right here at this blog).  But, hey, you've got to take what you can get, and even a vague reference is better than nothing.

The Bard College story also includes a sidebar that provides the full question on The Analects:

In “The Analects,” Confucius identifies the cardinal virtue of ren (variously translated as goodness, humanity, benevolence) with many different attitudes and behaviors. Yet Confucius also says, “There is one thread that runs through my doctrines.” Commentators differ about what that one thread is. What, in your opinion, could that one thread be? How does that one thread tie together the wide range of moral values that Confucius celebrates in “The Analects”? Support your answer by interpreting specific passages from the text.

That's a good question, and not an easy one for a person who does not have some familiarity with the text.  Do they teach The Analects in high schools now?  Without some sustained study of the book, it would be hard to locate the relevant passages.  So, here let me help.

Here's passage 4.15, with Hinton's translation:

子曰：「參乎！吾道一以貫之。」曾子曰：「唯。」子出。門人問曰：「何謂也？」曾子曰：「夫子之道，忠恕而已矣。」

The Master said: "Zeng! There's a single thread stringing my Way together."

"There is indeed," replied Master Zeng.

When the Master left, some disciples asked: "What did he mean?"

"Be loyal ot the principles of your heart, and treat others with that same loyalty," answered Master Zeng. "That is the Master's Way.  There is nothing more."

The idea of a "single thread" is repeated in  passage 15.3:, noted here with Hinton's translation:

子曰：「賜也，女以予為多學而識之者與？」對曰：「然，非與？」曰：「非也，予一以貫之。」

The Master said: "Kung, do you think of me as someone who studies widely and remembers what he learns?"

"Yes," replied Adept Kung. "Aren't you?"

"No. I've just found a single thread stringing it all together."

We might take the repetition as a sign of significance: the authors are suggesting that there is a key concept.  But it is in the first passage where that concept is stated most directly: a combination of zhong and shu: 忠 恕, "loyalty" and "reciprocity."    Hinton translates the pair together here as "treat others with that same loyalty." But that second character - 恕: shu - might be the key, suggesting as it does a certain moral reciprocity, a "golden rule" of sorts.  And that is something to keep in mind when contemplating ren: 仁, which we might translate as "humanity" or "humaneness" or "benevolence".  Ren is, as the question suggests, a very big part of The Analects.  There are many passages that speak to it.  My favorite is 6.30:

子貢曰：「如有博施於民而能濟眾，何如？可謂仁乎？」子曰：「何事於仁，必也聖乎！堯舜其猶病諸！夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲達而達人。能近取譬，可謂仁之方也已。

Here is Hinton's version:

 Adept Kung said: "How would you describe a person who sows all the people with blessings and assists everyone in the land? Could such a person be called Humane?"

"What does this have to do with Humanity [ren] " replied the Master. "If you must have a name, call this person a sage.  for even the enlightened Emperors Yao and Shun would seem lacking by comparison. As for Humanity: if you want to make a stand, help others make a stand, and if you want to reach your goal, help others reach their goal. Consider yourself and treat others accordingly: this is the method of Humanity.

So now we can all play at home, without having to apply to Bard: write an essay using the passages cited above to reflect upon the philosophy of The Analects.

And to think, all of this is inspired by a front-page mention in the Sunday NYT.  More please....

Sudo Genki Solves Japanese-South Korean Problems

I've got to say, I love these guys.  And, what the hell, why not make a play for better relations between Japan and South Korea with their motto (you'll see it at the very end):

 


Oh, and somehow I missed this next one, which came out last year (guess I got behind in following my favorite Japanese-MMA-turned-popstar videos...):

And yet a third one, "Aquarius," which is not quite as snappy but has some good moves, can be found here.  Great stuff.

The Form and Content of Soft Power

I am working on a paper, which I will present in Beijing and Shanghai in March, on the limitations to using Confucianism as a tool of the PRCs "soft power." (I am building upon, and extending beyond, this post from last fall).  So, I am thinking about soft power....

So, it was with some interest that I noticed a translation of an op-ed in the Chengdu Commericlal Daily, by journalist Chen Jibing, over at China Media Project. Chen argues that, if the PRC government really wants to gain in terms of global soft power, it is not enough to simply build up the technological capacities of Chinese media.  Content matters:

Objectively speaking, the influence of Western media has been determined not just by an advantage in assets and technology translating into broad geographical coverage. To a large extent, it derives also from the high quality of their news content.

...

Making the world hear the voice of China is not difficult. It is partly a matter of how much money we put in. But the difficulty lies in making the world accept China’s viewpoints. In the final analysis, the origin of the influence of the media or any cultural product lies in the true and credible nature of the facts of the news and in moral values with appeal.

Now, we can argue about the biases and failures of the Western media.  But Chen has a point, in that the more overt, and often clumsy, political regulation of news content in the PRC does put it at a disadvantage in terms of global credibility.  Indeed, what might save Western media in this regard is not the credibility, or lack thereof, of any particular source, but the profusion of many, many different sources.  So, not only does content matter, but lots of diverse content matters even more.  Freedom of content matters.  And, of course, the CCP limits the range of published opinion in an effort to bolster its own narrative and power.  Without greater freedom of expression and publication, Chinese soft power is likely to be constrained.

But soft power is not only about content.  It is about form.  This, at least, is an idea that came to my mind when I saw this article: "How China is using art (and artists) to sell itself to the world."  It considers how various forms of contemporary art - painting, sculpture, film, etc. - can project a new, and more appealing image of China to the world.  And there is likely a certain truth in that.  China is more culturally creative and vibrant and attractive (and "attraction" is what soft power is all about) than it was thirty, or even twenty, years ago. 

The question, though, is whose soft power is being served here?  The forms of much of Chinese contemporary art are drawn from international, including American, influences.  These pieces can move from galleries to museums to exhibitions all around the world.  They have a Chinese aspect to them but they are recognizable, their form is familiar, to Western audiences.  They are not exclusively and singularly "Chinese."  They are cosmopolitan.  And I wonder, does the diffusion of such avant garde art forms serve the soft power interests or China or the US?  Are they attracting "us" to become more like "them."  Or are "they" becoming more like "us"?  

To be clear, I think Chinese soft power is growing.  But I am not sure it is a function of "art" and "culture" (including philosophy).  I suspect it has more to do with economic performance and politics.  If the PRC's economy keeps growing, and political turbulence is kept in check, then the attractiveness of the "Beijing Consensus" is likely to gain globally.  But if the economy declines, and/or protests and demonstrations increase, then the China model may appear rather less attractive, regardless of media or art or philosophy...