<<

This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/

Overseas scholars of towards a pragmatic political

Leal Benavides, Rogelio

Awarding institution: King's College London

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement.

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions:  Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).  Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.  No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and rights are in no way affected by the above.

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 28. Sep. 2021

King’s College London Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy • School of Global Affairs Lau China Institute

Overseas Scholars of Confucianism

By

Rogelio Leal

Political Science & China Studies Joint Doctor of Philosophy with the National University of Singapore

National University of Singapore Faculty of & Social Sciences • Department of Political Science

2019

Overseas Scholars of Confucianism

Towards a Pragmatic

Rogelio Leal

Rogelio Leal Copyright © 2019

The have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

-

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

ABSTRACT xi

INTRODUCTION 13 Primary Focus 17 Theoretical Framework and Research Design 18 23 The Argument of the Study 26 Chapters Outline 28

1. DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 31 Transmission and Adoption of Ru 33 Expanding the “Third Wave” 41 Overseas Confucianism in the Making 45 Who are the Contemporary Overseas Scholars? 47

2. DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 55 Archaeology and as Methods 61 Rhetoric and Pragmatics 67 Parrhesia in Action 70 The Realproblematik of 75

3. ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 79 Preliminary Engagements with the Confucian Tradition 79 Influences and Meaningful 87 Propagating Confucianism: Intention and Intended Audience 97 Distinguishing Discourses, Methods, and Aims 104

4. MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 123 Interpreting Confucian Texts: Challenges and Difficulties 124 Development of post-Cultural Revolution Confucian Discourse 134 Is Confucianism still Relevant? 137 Preserving the Legacy and the Teachings of 151

5. OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 159 New Modes of Governance: Confucianising Politics 160 Politicising Confucianism through Designation-neologisms 174 Internationalising the Doctrine: Mingling Western and Confucian Civilisations 185 Aiming for a xiaokang Society 194

CONCLUSION 203

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 213

APPENDICES 221

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Xinzhong Yao for his incisive guidance and for introducing me to the field of Confucian studies and to Professor Sor-hoon Tan for her meaningful insights, valuable suggestions, and extraordinary supervision. It was a great privilege to work with both of them. Their expertise and scholarship have inspired me to make Confucianism and a lifelong intellectual pursuit. I also want to thank Professor Nicholas Bunnin for his support in the initial stages of my PhD and for elevating my interest in philosophy during our frequent meetings in London and Oxford. Moreover, I have benefited in numerous ways from the supervision of Professor Kerry Brown, whose advice and constructive comments and recommendations have helped me finalise a quality doctoral dissertation. Additionally, I want to thank Professor Chen An for his assertive direction and for clarifying key aspects of Chinese politics to me during my academic sojourn in Singapore. This work would not have been possible without the financial support of the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) of Mexico, who subsidised my entire degree programme. I also want to express my thanks to the Lau China Institute, the Centre for Doctoral Studies, the Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy, and the Global Mobility Office at King’s College London for their support and for fully or partially funding several of my research activities worldwide. Furthermore, the numerous staff members at King’s and at the National University of Singapore that facilitated my doctoral journey are fully deserving of my earnest regards. My most sincere thanks go to my dissertation committee, professors Qing Cao, Julia Lovell, Hui-chieh Loy, for accepting to examine this monograph. Their comments, suggestions, observations, and helpful criticisms helped me conclude my doctorate. I am deeply in debt to all the participants of this study for their cooperation and for generously agreeing to be interviewed for this research project. Finally, I cannot express in full the unconditional love, support, and encouragement from my friends and family throughout my doctoral studies—especially to my mother, whose immeasurable courage and endless kindness have guided my life towards a righteous path.

ix

ABSTRACT

For over two and a half millennia, the philosophical teachings of Confucianism have shaped and influenced the mores and political thinking of the Chinese people, as well as other Confucian civilisations. Present-day interpretations of Confucianism theorise about the possibility of restoring certain Confucian tenets and of incorporating them into modern socio- political contexts. This study brings together the thought and opinions of a selected group of individuals identified here as “overseas scholars of Confucianism” (haiwai ruxue xuezhe 海外 儒學學者) who were specifically interviewed for this research project. The study unveils the historical development and evolution of overseas Confucian discourse, and several methods (including dialectical-hermeneutics, phenomenology, and critical discourse analysis) have been used for the purposes of providing a systematic discourse . Taking into consideration the hermeneutical orientation of the scholarship of the interviewees—along with a detailed examination of their backgrounds and of their preliminary engagements with the tradition—their views on the contemporary relevance and praxis of Confucianism were analysed, and their thoughts on the plausibility of a modern political philosophy with Confucian characteristics were also discussed. This work demonstrates how overseas scholars of Confucianism advocate for the future importance of their discourse, and it also considers whether it can have an effect on the future of Chinese social and political affairs—and subsequently, on other nations as well. This dissertation anticipates that it is indeed possible to fashion a , based on the enterprise of the discourse of these and other scholars, in the form of a political philosophy that is both pragmatic and distinctively ethical.

xi

INTRODUCTION

The historical development of Confucian discourse has generally depended upon the hermeneutical interpretations of scholars and intellectuals who have been devoted to understanding the significance and practicality of the Confucian tradition. Their contributions and interpretations have shaped China’s and its social and political organisation for over two thousand years. Recently, there has been an increasingly high degree of interest in exploring, reassessing, and reconstructing Confucianism as a tool to respond to the social and political challenges currently faced by China and other countries. This study analyses the writings, ideas, and opinions of a selection of scholars from the school of contemporary overseas Confucianism.1 Their discourse is examined in light of their ability to interpret and transmit Confucianism through their verbal and written contributions. Many of their works have already become, or are in the process of , texts of central importance for understanding the modern development of Confucianism as well as its impact on the current state of affairs of the People’s Republic of China (hereafter China or PRC) and beyond. Several scholars argue that Confucianism should not be confined to Confucian societies; for it contains ethical, political, philosophical, and spiritual principles that are capable of used worldwide for the purposes of establishing more efficient modes of governance and, consequently, a more harmonious global society. In modern Confucian studies, the Confucian tradition is often divided into three epochs.2 The first epoch is known as classical Confucianism. The origins of this epoch lie in the Spring and Autumn period (770-476 BCE). The second epoch is Neo-Confucianism which developed during the Song-Ming period (960-1644). The third and current epoch is known as .3 New Confucianism originated between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. All three epochs of Confucianism share certain commonalities, and every one of them is grounded on the ru 儒 tradition.4 However, each epoch also has certain unique features in accordance with the circumstances of their time.

1 The term “overseas Confucianism” originates as part of the promotion and dissemination of Confucian ideas outside mainland China on the part of early twentieth-century Chinese Confucian scholars. Because several forms of Confucianism were repudiated during the Republican period (1912-1949), many Confucian intellectuals fled from China after the Communist takeover in 1949. They then continued to develop Confucian thought (mainly in Hong Kong and Taiwan), which is now being recognised as New Confucianism, and thus avoided prosecution. Today, overseas Confucianism is being developed and continued by a group of scholars— referred in this work as “contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism”—whose origins, particular geographies, and approaches to the tradition vary widely. 2 The division of Confucianism into epochs was developed and popularised in the mid-twentieth century by the New Confucian scholar Mou Zongsan in order to distinguish his approach to the tradition—and that of his contemporaries—from Song-Ming Confucian thinkers. 3 In some works, the term “New Confucianism” (xin ruxue 新儒學) is used interchangeably with “Contemporary Neo-Confucianism” (dangdai xin rujia 當代新儒家) and “Modern/Contemporary New Confucianism” (xiandai/dangdai xin ruxue 現代/當代新儒學). There are, however, scholars who insist that these terms are distinct options that are not wholly synonymous. 4 In ancient China, the ru 儒 were a social class of skilled and authoritative individuals with great intellectual capacities who were devoted to learning and education. Confucius (Kong Fuzi 孔夫子) was considered to be a ru. Later on, the term became associated with his teachings in order to form the ru tradition (i.e. “the tradition of scholars” or “scholarly tradition”). A brief introduction to this term and its origins can be found in Chapter 1.

13

14 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

New Confucianism is undergoing a continual process of development, and it is difficult to predict whether the current “third epoch” of Confucianism will have an impact on Chinese , politics, and society comparable to the previous two. Although Confucianism is an ancient tradition, its contemporary significance is being widely discussed at the present time. Its ethical, political, and humanistic characteristics are likely to help provide solutions for the various social and political problems that China, other Confucian civilisations, and the rest of the world are currently facing. Confucianism has the potential to serve as an alternative to the normative socio-political systems which currently hold sway in much of Europe, North America, and other countries that have been influenced by Western polities. Many scholars argue that Confucianism is a viable and sustainable ethical and political philosophy which may be of assistance in improving the social and political conditions of the world today. Historically, China’s initial interactions with Western values and nascent began with the European Jesuit missionaries who reached the region in the late sixteenth century. But it was not until the mid-nineteenth century that any influences from the West had significant impact on the Chinese political system. According to Hsiao Kung-chuan, “The direct cause of the changes in China’s political thought was the stimulus of outside forces.” Hsiao states that Chinese political thought was affected by “the continuous process of cultural and military invasion from the West” during the Yuan period (1279-1368)—this was the period of Mongol rule. This cultural and military incursion was responsible for the major changes in Chinese political thought that occurred in the later imperial era, i.e. in the Ming and Qing dynasties.5 As a result, Chinese political thought was “prevented” from internally progressing because of Western stimuli. Western ideas on political organisation, systems, and institutions did not align well with the imperial system of the Chinese, which was characterised by authoritarianism. Because of this, there was a radical shift in the Chinese modes of governance. Throughout most of imperial Chinese history, Confucianism prevailed as the state . It was one of the Hundred Schools of Thought during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods (475-221 BCE). Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE, ruled 141- 87 BCE) established Confucianism as the state ideology, but it was later overshadowed by Buddhism and Daoism for nearly eight centuries until Neo-Confucian literati “re-awakened” it in the mid-Tang dynasty (618-907).6 Consequently, Confucian doctrines underwent a series of changes. More recently, New Confucianism has aimed to modernise the tradition in an attempt to combine it with prevailing modern , especially Western ones. Nevertheless, there are some conservative scholars who have been more reluctant to synthesise Confucianism with non-Confucian ideas. The main representatives of the New Confucian up to now have been divided into three generations of scholars:7

5 Kung-chuan Hsiao, History of Chinese Political Thought, Volume One: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century A.D., vol. 1 (Princeton University Press, 1979), 16-17. 6 Carsun Chang, The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought (Bookman Associates, 1957), 17-41. 7 In the mid-1980s, a group of experts of Confucianism gathered in China to discuss the future of Confucianism in the mainland. The generational divisions of New Confucian scholars were discussed in this meeting. However, the constant labelling and categorisation on the part of scholars has been problematic, insofar as it has hindered any truly consistent identification of scholars with the New Confucian movement—a movement which began in the 1920s and which is often viewed as the starting point of modern Confucianism. (A twofold categorisation of scholars is possible here: Confucian scholars and scholars of Confucianism. The

INTRODUCTION 15

First Generation Ma Yifu 馬一浮 (1883-1967), Xiong Shili 熊十力 (1885-1968), Zhang Junmai 张君劢 (1886-1969), Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 (1893-1988), Feng Youlan 馮友蘭 (1895-1990), Qian Mu 錢穆 (1895-1990), He Lin 賀麟 (1902-1992)

Second Generation Fang Dongmei 方東美 (1899-1977), Xu Fuguan 徐復觀 (1903-1982), Mou Zongsan 牟 宗三 (1909-1995), Tang Junyi 唐君毅 (1909-1978)

Third Generation Yu Ying-shih 余英時 (1930—), Liu Shu-hsien 劉述先 (1934-2016), Cheng Chung-ying 成中英 (1935—), Tu Wei-ming 杜维明 (1940—)

After the PRC was established in 1949, most Confucian intellectuals fled the country. Of the first generation of New Confucianists, Qian Mu moved to Hong Kong, and Zhang Junmai went to the United States. All the second and third-generation scholars relocated as well—either to Hong Kong (at that point a British colony) or to the Republic of China in Taiwan. Thus, the student-teacher Confucian genealogy was well concentrated in these regions. Of the third generation, Yu Ying-shih was a pupil of Qian Mu in Hong Kong; Cheng Chung-ying and Liu Shu-hsien were mostly influenced by Fang Dongmei; and Tu Wei-ming studied under Mou Zongsan and Xu Fuguan. All four third-generation scholars ended up relocating to or spending numerous years in the United States. As a result, the transmission of from one generation to another advanced to the West from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.8 In recent decades, the number of people interested in learning about Confucianism, Chinese philosophy, and Chinese intellectual history has increased. This study attempts to deconstruct the discourse of a selected group of scholars who have become respected academics in the above-mentioned fields. These individuals will be identified or classified in this study as

former are scholars who identify themselves as “Confucian” or as members of the Confucian tradition; they follow the Confucian doctrines or live their lives in accordance with these. The latter do not identify themselves as “Confucian” per se; they are only interested in conducting academic research on the tradition. Nevertheless, scholars often refrain from emphasising these distinctions.) During this reunion, several mainland scholars including Chen Lai 陳來, Chen Ming 陈明, Guo Qiyong 郭齊勇, Jiang Qing 蔣慶, Kang Xiaoguang 康曉光, Li Jinglin 李景林, Luo Yijun 羅義俊, Sheng Hong 盛洪, Yan Binggang 顏炳罡, Yang Guorong 楊國榮, and Zheng Jiadong 鄭家棟 were labelled as the fourth generation of New Confucians. Moreover, some scholars in Taiwan such as Huang Junjie 黃俊傑, Lee Ming-huei 李明輝, and Lin Anwu 林安梧 have also been classified as fourth-generation New Confucians. For an account on the generational divisions, see John Makeham, Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Harvard University Press, 2008), 254- 57. Umberto Bresciani, Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement (Taipei Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies, 2001), 30-32, 427-51. 8 Although third-generation New Confucians have been the main exporters of Confucianism to the West, Zhang Junmai (a.k.a. Carsun Chang) of the first generation was one of the first scholars to disseminate Confucian teachings overseas. As observed by Liu Shu-hsien, Zhang promoted “Neo-Confucian ideas in the United States and became a representative of hai-wai hsin-ju-chia [haiwai xin rujia] (overseas Neo- Confucianism).” See Shu-hsien Liu, Essentials of Contemporary Neo-Confucian Philosophy, Resources in Asian Philosophy and (Praeger, 2003), 25.

16 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism (dangdai haiwai ruxue xuezhe 當代海外儒 學學者). Like third-generation New Confucians, contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism have enjoyed a wider international scope of attention—since most of their contributions are aimed at non-Mandarin speaking audiences. Except for third-generation New Confucians—and a few exceptions belonging to the fourth generation who might fall under the “overseas scholar” label—none of the contemporary overseas scholars have been assigned to the generational division of the New Confucian movement. The expertise, theories, reflections, and contributions of overseas scholars have played a significant role in the and evolution of Confucianism. Currently, there are no studies that examine contemporary overseas Confucian discourse as a whole. Historically, the Confucian tradition has been limited to China and other Confucian civilisations (e.g. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan); however, for nearly one hundred years, Confucianism has been reinterpreted by third-generation and overseas scholars of Confucianism in ways that are intended to help make it compatible with the modern world, both in political and social terms. This study analyses contemporary overseas Confucian discourse using a series of one-on- one interviews that were conducted exclusively for this project. To complement the interviews, the analysis includes written publications from the interviewees and other scholars to provide a broader account of contemporary academic overseas Confucian discourse. Several scholarly works and opinions found and used throughout the study may not fall under the of overseas Confucian discourse, but they are intended to reinforce some of the arguments in order to clarify the modern development of the tradition. The selected interviewees comprise Chinese and non-Chinese historians, political scientists, philosophers and Sinologists. This study pays particular attention to the pragmatic elements of their discourse as well as to the subsequent socio-political effect it may produce. For most of the twentieth century, Confucianism was viewed in China as an impediment to progress and modernisation. This was because of its feudal, hierarchical principles of organisation as well as its imperial institutional arrangements. However, its contemporary revival could well the stage for a plausible—and, perhaps, semi-comprehensive—modern political philosophy; one that could serve as a more widely followed and more publicly recognised system of beliefs and which is well integrated with China’s development as well as closely embedded in its relations with the outside world. Hence, an in-depth investigation of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse can assist in identifying the significance of this tradition in contemporary global socio-political affairs. The intellectual and philosophical weight of modern Confucianism is founded upon the contributions of scholars whose aim is to advance the theory, methodology, and practice of this tradition. It is hoped that, in reading this work, the reader will be able to understand and appreciate how important is for these scholars to expand on, preserve, promote, or spread the teachings of Confucius (551-479 BCE) in order to positively transform societies and governmental bodies by educating people in the key principles and values contained within Confucianism.

INTRODUCTION 17

Primary Focus

This study assesses both the dissemination and the modern relevance of contemporary overseas Confucianism. The main objective of this work is to identify and deconstruct the discourse of a selected group of scholars as encountered in various intellectual contexts. The humanistic aspects of the Confucian tradition have profound social, political, philosophical, and spiritual implications, and these are of central importance for understanding Chinese culture—as well for developing new modes of governance in China and in other Confucian civilisations. Present-day scholars theorise on the possibility of restoring Confucian and of incorporating them into Chinese and non-Chinese socio-political frameworks. Whether it is possible to re-establish Confucianism as a kind of civic statute or social ethic in China and abroad, is a question that still requires some further analysis. It is imperative to identify key arguments in the works and interpretations of these scholars in order to have a better understanding of the consequences of reincorporating ancient Chinese philosophical principles into modern socio-political practices. The main challenge, however, is to turn these theories and interpretations into Realpolitik (i.e. realistic or practical politics based on national interests). Nonetheless, such transformations must then be truly acceptable as genuine, trustworthy contributions which are capable of providing practical remedies for the more troubling problems of the political sphere before they are delivered to the public and implemented by those in power. Confucianism exercises a profound influence over much of the world, nearly two billion people are culturally influence by or associated to the tradition, and yet it still remains poorly understood. It is a system still constrained by an association with East Asia, so why has it not spread beyond the confines of Asia? Why is it so culturally and geographically circumscribed? Is it simply because language or cultural barriers restricted its reception elsewhere? Or, was there no easy way of further propagating this tradition? Is it so inextricably linked to a regional social order or political organisation that it is incapable of truly functioning outside Confucian civilisations? It can be argued that Confucianism is a humanistic tradition adaptable to the needs of human worldwide, yet its social and political structures have never spread as far as other regions or continents. Instead, non-Confucian civilisations assembled their own values and socio- political arrangements devising forms of government that were tailored to their own indigenous necessities, conditions, circumstances, and historical events. Today, world civilisations can no longer be alienated or fully isolated; thus, a range of diverse traditions have blended with different systems of beliefs on account of the inevitable and long-standing interdependency found among modern societies. Nation-states are naturally driven towards improving their own conditions; and as the world witnesses the rise of China, many political leaders, corporate executives, and other people in power are interested in understanding Chinese culture, society, and politics. Consequently, a good place to start is by examining ancient Chinese traditions. Chinese philosophy is a vast and intriguing area of study, but numerous works (ancient and modern) on Chinese philosophy are either not studied or barely read outside of Mandarin speaking communities. In China, for instance, there are experts on Confucianism who lack English proficiency, and only few of their works have been translated into English or other

18 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM languages. Likewise, the language barrier limits the ability of these scholars to properly assess or criticise non-Chinese works. Subsequently, many Chinese scholars often ignore or misinterpret English-language literature on Confucianism and end up lacking awareness of what is being disseminated and how Confucianism is portrayed outside of mainland China. Chinese scholars and overseas scholars have often failed to find consensus in their opinions. Even some mainland Chinese scholars have been offended by overseas scholars gaining prestige for conducting research or publishing works on Confucianism. They either claim that overseas scholars lack the ability to comprehend Chinese traditions holistically because they were not born or raised in China (or other Sinitic societies); or if the overseas scholar happens to be of Chinese origin but has lived or worked abroad for a long period of time or earned a university degree in a Western country, he or she is believed to have been influenced by ideas that inevitably “contaminate” his or her interpretations of the tradition. Chinese and overseas scholarship on Confucianism needs to be made available to a wider audience. It is equally important to reflect upon what is being said about Confucianism, and how this tradition is being interpreted by mainland and overseas scholars today. The language barrier has encouraged experts in the field to translate Chinese works on Confucianism and to make their own interpretations of the tradition in order to disseminate or make available the teachings of Confucius on a larger scale. This study is of interdisciplinary interest, and it is deliberately aimed at any students, scholars, intellectuals, and political philosophers or theorists who may be interested in improving their understanding of the role Confucianism is playing in the twenty-first century. The study provides a hermeneutical assessment of verbal and written materials (mainly in English) from a selected group of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism. It argues that through the discourse of these scholars, it is possible to derive and perhaps implement a modern Confucian-style political philosophy as a workable civic statute or socio-political ethic, both in China and abroad; one that is capable of supplementing mainstream political . Contemplating the of Confucianism pragmatically in the twenty-first century, combined with today’s dominant socio-political ideologies, could produce a new political philosophy which can serve to examine global society. It is hoped that many people will benefit from this study in order to understand the modern evolution of China’s major philosophical tradition—the founding pillar of its entire intellectual history.

Theoretical Framework and Research Design

This study concentrates on political and philosophical aspects of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse and its present-day transmitters. A postmodernist and poststructuralist philosophical approach is used throughout the study for the purposes of analysing discourse. With the aid of both, a critical theory in the form of a political philosophy is fashioned in this study. The hermeneutical orientation of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism is evaluated using these two methods to help give an account of how the works of these and other scholars are currently understood among people who are interested in Chinese intellectual

INTRODUCTION 19 history, politics, society, traditions, and philosophy. But by taking such an approach, there is always the possibility that a literary snowball effect could occur with certain philosophical connotations continuing to evolve over time. This is because the scholar can only make sense of literary works in accordance with his or her own in light of the present state of affairs. In other words, the acquired knowledge and hermeneutical interpretations of the discourse-elaborator is historically biased in keeping with the biases of preceding generations. The overall concepts of a system of ideas may not change much, but some of its subdivisions may still undergo some drastic shifts.9 Postmodernism essentially entails a profound consideration of discourse and rhetoric—the mode of language by which ideas are conveyed as well as their cognitive content. seeks to understand phenomena and to distinguish , knowledge, power, authority, and social progress from their opposite counterparts (i.e. immorality, ignorance, subordination, inferiority, and stagnation). By using a postmodernist approach, this study locates specific differences and points of commonality among the discourses of the scholars— all of which are measured by different standards. Individual thought processes and their attendant ideas do vary widely from one individual to another. One example is ’ and Xunzi’s views on human nature: Mencius (372-289 BCE) believed people are naturally good while Xunzi (c. 310-c. 235 BCE) claimed human nature is bad or evil. The same happens in contemporary overseas Confucianism, scholars interpret Confucianism and the works of Confucian thinkers in different ways. Moreover, poststructuralism originated in France in the late twentieth century as a critique of . (Structuralism is concerned with the task of defining or giving meaning to language or a text by considering the author’s use of language; it relates to complex systems of language-structure that shape the meaning of words, sentences, or enunciations.) Poststructuralism separates the author and the meaning of a specific word or text from the interpretation of the reader. While the author may be reasonably considered to be conveying a specific idea, the reader is still capable of perceiving and giving meaning to the text or the utterance in a different way.10 Poststructuralism highlights the meaning the reader cognitively generates—which can emerge from other texts, discourses, experiences, customs, cultural values, etc.—rather than emphasising the meaning the author is trying to convey. Consequently, it is up to the reader to make sense of the usage of the enunciation by relating it to the context of the text itself. The sort of tools that are used to analyse the discourse of the interviewees will be explained more in detail in Chapter 2. Today, there is an increasing number of studies on Confucianism that provide numerous interpretations of its contemporary significance as well as its ability to adapt to modern settings. There are some important socio-political, philosophical, and non-secular elements of

9 For example, Confucius transmitted his interpretations of the old texts to his disciples. In turn, they passed down his teachings as far as Mencius. Mencius’ interpretations were then transmitted to other Confucian thinkers at different epochs including Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179-104 BCE), Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017- 1073), and Wang Yangming 王陽明 (1472-1529). Each of these scholars followed the basic principles or concepts found in the teachings of the ru tradition in order to refurbish them and to come up with various different interpretations or applications that corresponded with their own contemporary settings. 10 In the Analects, for instance, ren 仁 may be interpreted or translated as benevolence, humaneness, human- heartedness, love, goodness, and so on. Therefore, ren does not have a single meaning; its various meanings depend on the context it is used in or the purpose it is intended to convey.

20 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Confucianism that need to be carefully considered, in a holistic manner, as these are capable of bringing about benefits to societies and governments worldwide. The resurgence of Confucianism has been a matter of discussion among experts in the field, public intellectuals, government officials, and other individuals. Many whom believe that the significance of Confucianism lies in reaching a consensus with modernity while still retaining its own fundamental principles. In addition, the Confucian tradition has been typologically associated with democracy, capitalism, Christianity, and other perceived Western tendencies; however, some Confucian traditionalists prefer to preserve and develop more of its orthodox forms, thereby rejecting any influence from Western-style modernisation. The newly revived phase of Confucianism has gained worldwide attention. Since the modern rise of China, the global community has been increasingly interested in trying to understand its rapid economic growth and socio-political progress. One way of understanding modern China is to look at its history: a particular form of Confucianism ended up becoming the dominant socio-political ideology throughout imperial China, and numerous ideas can be drawn from it. 11 Many scholars have invested significant time towards investigating Confucianism by means of conducting research on the teachings of Confucius, or the writings and philosophies of Confucian thinkers from different times and epochs. Consequently, some of them have been recognised as (or are on the verge of becoming) experts in the field and key contributors to modern Confucianism. Eventually, these scholars could reasonably be regarded as major representatives of overseas New Confucianism (haiwai xin ruxue 海外新儒學). Like the New Confucian scholars, contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism investigate and interpret Chinese traditional philosophy, Confucian texts, and discourses that are characteristic of the tradition. Their contributions also constitute a distinctive corpus of materials which is helping to continue the Confucian tradition and to facilitate its dissemination both in and outside of China. Because there is currently no scholarship investigating this particular group of people, this study is designed to present and examine several aspects of their discourse.To narrow the scope of the research, the works of several scholars have been selected, and one-on-one interviews have been conducted. The interviewees are scholars from different academic institutions as well as diverse nationalities and backgrounds. The rationale for the choice of localities was not determined by specific geographical locations but rather by the individual scholar’s impetus towards promoting or disseminating Confucian ideas. Their works are aimed at a wide selection of audiences, and because in large part these are to be read by the non-Chinese reader, their discourse falls under the “overseas” label. The interviews have garnered first-hand insights from their thought, their primary influences, and the motivations behind their research. Correspondingly, their written and verbal discourses are analysed in order to present arguments that assist with creating a proper vision of what makes Confucianism relevant to contemporary times and with determining whether modern Confucianism is capable of becoming a source for a new and innovative political philosophy. The results of this study were synthesised by documenting interview data. After collecting and registering the data, substantial conclusions were derived, and certain key aspects of modern Confucian discourse were identified.

11 For a grand overview of how the Confucian school prevailed over Daoist and Buddhist traditions during the late imperial period, see Frederick W. Mote, Imperial China 900-1800 (Harvard University Press, 2003).

INTRODUCTION 21

Following a format of semi-structured interviews, the questions and follow-up questions were adjusted to each specific scholar. These questions (Appendix - C) were deliberately designed to openly examine the rhetoric and of the scholars’ declarations and to obtain each interviewee’s points of view on topics concerning society, politics, philosophy, and religiosity in relation to Confucianism and its relevance and application today in these and other contexts. The interviews were conducted for the purposes of understanding the reasoning behind each scholar’s appeal to the Confucian tradition and to gather accurate information from their personal and academic backgrounds in addition to their own individual scholarly approaches to Confucianism—in terms of aims, discourse, and methods. The scholars were also asked about their most recent and upcoming works as well as their attitudes towards the writings and interpretations of preceding scholars and their contemporaries. All interviewees were informed beforehand about the purpose of the study and the structure of the interview.

Research Objectives and Questions

The modern revitalisation of Confucianism, and the role overseas scholars have played in this, deserves considerable attention. Since the beginning of the New Confucian movement in the early 1920s, the main representatives of this tradition developed a way of thinking that was capable of successfully distinguishing their discourse from their Neo-Confucian predecessors. Thus, it is necessary to pay attention to the evolution of Confucian discourse by taking the twentieth century as a starting point while assuming a receptive attitude towards its progressive stance as a contemporary intellectual, political, and . Modern Confucianism is far from its earlier and more orthodox forms; nonetheless, the core values have still been preserved and remain vibrant.12 Recently, China has adopted Western models, and these have merged with Chinese traditions. Consequently, a new system of ideas has been produced, and the human rationale and experience behind such has changed accordingly and is still in an ongoing process of development. This brings us to the research objectives of the study. This study attempts to (1) reveal the main cultural, philosophical, and socio-political dilemmas faced by Confucianism in China and the modern world, (2) examine the feasibility and practicality of its core values today by deconstructing contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, and (3) identify key characteristics of China’s cultural identity framed upon the Confucian tradition:

(1) The basic components of modernisation in China (and the world) have cultural, social, and political implications that relate to mechanisms such as “technological development, societal expansion, structural differentiation, the fragmentation of society’s culture, and

12 During the Tang dynasty (618-907), Daoism and Buddhism challenged Confucianism as the state ideology. Hence, the Confucians of the time tried to restore Confucian orthodoxy through the education system and the civil service examinations. They paved the way for later Confucians who consolidated a larger and more comprehensive form of Confucianism that incorporated Daoist and Buddhist characteristics into the tradition. And by the time of the Song dynasty (960-1279), classical Confucianism developed into what is now known as Neo-Confucianism. For a brief account of the reinstitution of Confucianism as state ideology during the Tang and Song dynasties, see Julia Ching, “ and Ideology: The Confucian Way (Tao) and Its Transmission (Tao-T’ung),” Journal of the History of Ideas 35, no. 3 (1974): 371-75.

22 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

the growing importance of the individual at the expense of groups.”13 The combination of ancient and modern principles are relevant to certain socio-cultural and political activities, each of which are necessary sources of knowledge to help us understand the practical application of ancient Chinese intellectual thought into modern times. The study also presents a normative approach to Confucianism by illustrating its evolutionary aspects.

(2) The and philosophical development of Confucianism and of attempts to recreate a Confucian society are two topics of interest to scholars and public intellectuals. Thanks to contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, some of the main Confucian concepts14 are now being regarded as necessary conditions that can help facilitate an articulation of the intrinsic values that are shared by human beings. As a result, re-integrating and adapting Confucian core values in China has the potential to lead to a more prosperous society, and it is hoped that this might set an example for other nations in the world.

(3) China’s cultural identity is currently being shaped by three clusters of factors: i) the political agenda and ideological foundation of the government, ii) Western influences and practices, iii) and traditional values. Even though the Confucian tradition was marginalised for most of the twentieth century, a new is emerging. The revival of Confucianism seeks “to solve the problems of cultural identity that necessarily arise during rapid modernisation.”15 However, the expediency of the Chinese leadership that emerged after the death of Mao and their use of traditional Chinese culture (Confucianism in particular) is often regarded as a misrepresentation of the rich histories of various forms of Confucian thought over the last two and a half millennia. Several scholars are concerned about the current Communist regime’s use of Chinese traditional culture as this could be interpreted as betraying the paucity of the CCP’s own belief systems.

The research objectives are set to provide an evaluation of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse and its modern implications. Moreover, the following research question and sub- questions are considered to help navigate the reader through the thesis.

Research Question:

• How do leading contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism advocate for the future importance of their discourse (in China and abroad), and can it be developed into a pragmatic political philosophy?

13 Joseph B. Tamney and Linda Hsueh-Ling Chiang, Modernization, Globalization, and Confucianism in Chinese Societies (Praeger Publishers, 2002), 7. 14 For example, (de 德), exemplary person (junzi 君子), humaneness/benevolence (ren 仁), righteousness (yi 義), ritual propriety (li 禮), wisdom (zhi 智), trustworthiness (xin 信), and filial piety (xiao 孝). 15 Werner Meissner, “China’s Search for Cultural and National Identity from the Nineteenth Century to the Present,” China Perspectives, no. 68 (2006).

INTRODUCTION 23

Sub-Questions:

• What are the effects of contemporary Confucian discourse in relation to the cultural and socio-political development of China and other Confucian civilisations? • Are the formative concepts of Confucianism potential apparatuses to produce a social ethic or civic statute in the twenty-first century? • How could contemporary Confucian discourse reach an equivalent amount of leverage in present-day Chinese politics as it did during the classical and Song- Ming periods? • To what extent can the “natural rhetoric” of Confucian discourse influence members of society, academic circles, and the government?

It is necessary to understand the scholarly interpretations of the Confucian tradition in present- day academic circles to see whether these can prompt positive cultural and socio-political transformations in China and beyond. The , relevance, and praxis of the tradition is often reflected in the scholars’ discourses. Thus, by conducting an analytical discourse evaluation to identify key aspects of Confucianism would lead to a critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their rhetoric. In addition, it is important to consider that the Chinese government holds a particular position in terms of being able to implement or legitimise Confucian tenets in the country as a driving force to enhance the living conditions of its citizenry. The theoretical framework in this study (in addition to several other tools used to analyse discourse) is grounded on poststructuralist and postmodernist theories—as well as the plan and the design. Both theories are crucial articulations that can help with the task of conducting a deeper assessment of a specific discourse. This has been done in order to reveal the intricacies of the dialectical hermeneutics of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse as well as to provide an account of its significance and practicality in the world of today.

Methodology

For structural and academic purposes, a selection of different research methods is used in this study in order to provide a rigorous and compelling account of the findings. The methodological framework consists of identifying particularities of opinions among major contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism, and it explores and recognises the importance of their rhetoric and discourse. Methods or for analysing political theory or philosophy may easily vary. Most political scientists and philosophers have unique approaches on how to go about conducting research in order to convey what they want to say and to exemplify the exact methods or methodological framework they wish to use, at least on paper. However, there is no systematic way of using one or various research methods in these fields, and occasionally, some of these individuals prefer to embed their methods indirectly into their writings.

24 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

In this study, a series of interviews were conducted with prominent scholars in the field of Confucianism—as well as Chinese philosophy and Chinese intellectual history—and used as the central research method or qualitative technique for data . The purpose of these interviews was to obtain a first-hand assessment of the motivations, textual interpretations, and contributions to modern Confucian discourse among these scholars. These were planned to gather a more affluent source of information directly from the scholars themselves. In addition, some of the most influential literary contributions of third-generation New Confucian scholars—including a few English translations of the emerging fourth generation—are analysed in combination with the works of contemporary overseas scholars in an effort to intellectually expand on the spread of this tradition. Moreover, dialectical-hermeneutics, phenomenology, and critical discourse analysis are combined and used as part of the methodology for examining contemporary overseas Confucian discourse; the ultimate purpose behind this is to develop a critical theory. This study is an intellectual investigation and discussion of the genuineness of opinions in the area of contemporary overseas Confucian hermeneutics. This research involves the observation of how the Confucian tradition is being interpreted by the participants shortlisted in this study, and it considers to what extent their ideas are practical, realistic, relevant, or valuable today. To begin with, dialectical-hermeneutics is set to analyse how written works on and understandings of Confucian texts are capable of persuading or significantly influencing culture, society, and politics (as well as education, economics, and so forth). This approach assists with elucidating the rhetorical effect of scholarly discourses on both Chinese and global civic affairs. Second, phenomenology is the philosophical study founded on the analysis of self- awareness and subjectivity, and it serves as an accurate method of studying an individual’s quale (i.e. first-person experiences, mental states, sensorial undertakings, consciousness, cognitive processes, etc.). The study explores the question of which practices from Confucianism are required for a person to become an upright and self-cultivated individual by way of pursuing genuine and authentic learning.16 Using phenomenology as one of the methods, ontological and epistemological approaches are considered so as to assist with exploring the works of the scholars studied here. Combining dialectical-hermeneutics and phenomenology as platforms for gaining understanding about words and narratives, the complexities of analysing textual and verbal discourses are navigated and put into simplified form—making them available to readers who then have the opportunity to explore the various literary interpretations provided by the authors, as well as their intellectual input more generally. Third, the subject matter of this study requires a thorough approach to critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis examines language usage. The and writings of many overseas scholars of Confucianism, among other intellectuals, have elicited responses among various academic communities. These, in turn, result in numerous positive or negative effects in terms of how Confucianism is understood, or how it might influence social or political institutions—including its impact upon Confucian societies in both its domestic and

16 According to Neo-Confucian thinker Wang Yangming, self-cultivation is primordial, and virtue can only be cultivated through “genuine learning.” To learn more about Wang’s thought on genuine learning, see Wei-ming Tu, “Subjectivity and Ontological : An Interpretation of Wang Yang-Ming’s Mode of Thinking,” Philosophy East and West 23, no. 1/2 (1973).

INTRODUCTION 25 international aspects. Several items must be pointed out and acknowledged when critically analysing the writings, utterances, and opinions of the participants of this study in order to ensure that the primary focus will be placed on social and political issues by way of an empirical critical analysis. Critical discourse analysis focuses on the ways discursive structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.17 As a result, it is important to note the social interactions and structures of discourse (i.e. where it is found, whether it is practical, and who benefits from it). Critical discourse analysis looks at key terminologies, the structure, content, and tone of the discourse, and the ways in which texts are or language is capable of conveying notions of power. Additionally, to ensure that this research can be both comprehensive and holistic, critical theory will be included as a methodology. Critical theory is closely related to poststructuralism and postmodernism, and it represents an assessment and critique of the major components of society (and culture) as a whole. Nevertheless, within this framework, some of the main issues concerning the global spread of Confucianism and its academic, political, socio-cultural, philosophical, and religious encounters are also recognised. There are tensions between Confucianism and the current ideological foundation of the CCP, and these are addressed over the course of this study in order to emphasise various conscious and unconscious preconceptions of the social and political situation on the part of the Chinese citizenry and current leaders. These tensions extend to academic circles, especially the domains of philosophy, politics, and theology. Several scholars have pointed out that the core concepts and key elements of critical theory (as postulated by Max Horkheimer,18 widely considered the foremost expert in critical theory and one of the most prominent thinkers) are the following:

• Critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity • Critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology19

In addition, a critical theory is suitable only if it simultaneously satisfies these three criteria:

• It must be explanatory: explain what is wrong with current • It must be practical: identify the actors to change it • It must be normative: provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation20

17 Teun A. Van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Blackwell, 2001), 352. 18 See Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays, trans. M. J. O’Connell, et al. (Continuum Publishing Company, 1982), 188-243. 19 Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Second ed. (, 2009), 6. 20 James Bohman, “Critical Theory,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, March 8, 2005.

26 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Critical theory aims to consolidate a thorough understanding of the socio-political structures that govern modern societies. The point of departure is to conduct a critique of the power of ideologies in order to recognise how, when, and where the dominant social and political constructs of today initiated. Those constructs should then be evaluated and reassessed if they are not intended to transform or improve the overall conditions of society. So, this study analyses the discourse of the selected participants by taking the above concepts and criteria into consideration. The outcomes of this study will ultimately be judged by the practicality of the research, as well as by the quality of the analytical reasoning. Collecting data through meticulous research, conducting interviews, and using specific theories and methods to discuss discourse will suffice for fulfilling the primary objectives of this study. This way, the reader will become aware, as the thesis proceeds, that this study is not restricted to the use of a specific methodology. However, the methods used here (in addition to other methodological tools including archaeology, genealogy, parrhesia, and the Realproblematik of hermeneutics explained in Chapter 2) are the fundamental cornerstones endowing direction and structure upon this study.

The Argument of the Study

The discourse of distinguished contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism is examined and key aspects are assessed in order to gain a better understanding of the development and evolution of modern Confucianism. As previously mentioned, this study argues that it is possible to derive and perhaps implement a modern Confucian-style political philosophy as a workable civic statute or socio-political ethic in the modern world, yet it must be combined with today’s dominant socio-political ideologies. To assess the discourse of the interviewed scholars, it is necessary to evaluate the rhetorical and pragmatic effects of their views as well as their present-day significance. To date, there is no work discussing contemporary overseas Confucianism in the way this study intends. Thanks to scholarly critiques and discussions, Confucianism is evolving and continuously progressing. Many Confucian enthusiasts feel there is a need to locate Confucian theories that can be developed into practices. For instance, some scholars speak or write at length on Confucianism or its key representatives by constructing detailed analyses and assessments. They furnish their own interpretations of the theoretical aspects while also contemplating different dimensions of the practical implications. Meanwhile, other scholars focus on elaborating on such discourses, and that results in a continual discursive engagement amid scholars. This represents a commitment to recognising Confucianism as a fully-fledged tradition, philosophy, or ethical system; one that is able to continuously mould itself in new ways and to eliminate, accordingly, any unfavourable socio-political practices. If China wants to ensure continual social and political stability, the government must make efforts to refurbish Chinese traditional and cultural values while also paying attention to the challenges brought by modernity. China’s current ideological foundation is built upon with Chinese characteristics, but it is gradually opening up to other forms of

INTRODUCTION 27 governance and economic theories. It is possible to ensure continual social and political progress by combining some of the politico-philosophical principles found in Confucianism with China’s current ideological foundation (which is grounded in -Leninism), in addition to some other values and customs advocated by Western ideologies. If certain Confucian principles are adapted to current Chinese politics and modes of governance, there are some real benefits that can arise from this. The Communist Party could facilitate the materialisation of such benefits. By selecting appropriate guiding principles and vigorous political practices and ideologies that are fitted to today’s conditions, China can assume an increasingly powerful and influential position. Obviously, these actions do not suffice to achieve power and influence in the world, but such behaviours may well ultimately serve as mechanisms for ameliorating the present situation of the nation and of the world. Ideally, any modifications in the Chinese status quo should not have major negative effects domestically or among its neighbours or other nations. Confucianism, obviously, does not have the answers to all the problems of human , but as a tradition concerned for the welfare of the public, it has a distinct genuine attitudinal commitment towards the development of an ethical system that is characterised by moral behaviours and righteous governance. This study also argues that New Confucianism, although it is in its initial phase, has the potential to become just as historically significant as the two previous epochs. 21 But is it actually possible for contemporary Confucianism to gain leverage in present-day Chinese society and politics comparable to the versions of Confucianism found in the classical and Song-Ming periods? In the early twentieth century, there were antagonistic and pessimistic views on the import of Confucianism for the future of China.22 Nonetheless, its contemporary revival has proven these views wrong. Confucianism is one example of a doctrine aimed both at delivering solutions to primordial socio-political matters and at reducing the anxieties and distresses experienced by humankind. Scholars are aiming to demonstrate that it is indeed conceivable to reconcile tradition with modernity for the benefit of all. For example, in recent times, various Confucian viewpoints have been widely discussed at different levels of society; including the use of Confucian ethics at corporate levels and for the purposes of addressing the world economy or global warming. It is hard to disagree with Liu Shu-hsien that “Confucianism, like a phoenix reborn from the ashes, appears to be thriving…in the new century and millennium.”23 Confucianism is gaining momentum along with the rise of China, and the easiest way to consolidate its contemporary significance is by reconstructing it in a pluralistic manner to fill in the intangible moral vacuum nations and individuals are struggling with today. By scrutinising what is being said and written about Confucianism today, it will be possible to come up with new ways of philosophically reflecting upon modernity, globalisation, and governance—in order to positively influence people’s inclinations and attitudes.

21 Up to now, New Confucianism comprises four generations of scholars and is coming close to a century since its commencement. The claim that New Confucianism is still in its initial phase is made based on the duration of the two previous epochs of Confucianism which lasted nearly one thousand years each. 22 For example, Max Weber’s mistrust of Confucianism, Chen Duxiu’s 陳獨秀 determination to abolish the tradition, and Joseph R. Levenson’s predictions that it was not going to flourish in modern China. 23 Liu, 23.

28 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

The distinctiveness of the intrinsic nature of Confucianism is an integral part of the Chinese . The most influential academic discussions on this subject appeal to the ethical, spiritual, social, philosophical, and political domains; all this, in turn, has led to major debates about how Confucianism should be reconciled with present-day Chinese society, customs, and politics. At the same time, the social, spiritual, and political aspects of classical and Neo- Confucianism do, at times, clash with New Confucian principles. Nevertheless, the modern significance of Confucianism is still intimately connected with its ancient philosophical traditions.24 Modern Confucian discourse is inclined to evoke the true spirit and relevance of the tradition; it also looks at the benefits or problems that can arise if a Confucian-style governance, education system, or spiritual and philosophical values (or indeed a combination of these) are (re)implemented in China. These are some of the main challenges Confucianism faces today, and if it is to endure as a tradition, it needs to gradually shift from mere theory to practice. This system of beliefs, as represented by its practical impact on cultural and socio-political affairs, has the necessary features to become a guiding principle that is capable of defining China’s cultural identity and socio-political organisation for many years to come.

Chapters Outline

The main objective of this study is to focus on the modern revival and spread of Confucianism by investigating contemporary overseas Confucian discourse. For this , a basic yet necessary contextual explanation of the tradition is presented in Chapter 1. This chapter examines the roots and dissemination of Confucianism and provides a brief account of the evolution Confucian discourse has undertaken from the time of Confucius onwards. It is fundamentally important to understand how the teachings of Confucius were transmitted and adopted by commoners, intellectuals, and sovereigns during dynastic times in China; and later on, in other parts of East Asia. This chapter concentrates on the formation of contemporary overseas scholarly discourse of Confucianism. It includes a section dedicated to the expansion of the so-called “third wave” or “third epoch” of Confucianism and discusses the contemporary spread of the discourse. Chapter 2 describes the methods and methodology used throughout the study. In this chapter, the reader will find information on how the study was carried out, why it was necessary to conduct this type of research, the steps taken during the course of the study, the challenges faced, and the theories used.25 The intended outcome of this study is presented in this chapter to help provide the reader with a basic understanding of how the collected data speaks for itself in the subsequent chapters. The objective of Chapter 2 is to explain how the verbal and written

24 Although New Confucian philosophies, concepts, notions, and values are grounded on earlier forms of Confucianism, especially Neo-Confucian ones, ideological shifts took place during the fashioning of New Confucianism because of the inevitable circumstances of the modern world and Western ideas penetrating China at the time. 25 Chapter 2 can be used as a guide for others to replicate the same methods and methodology if a comparable study is to be produced.

INTRODUCTION 29 interpretations of selected prominent overseas scholars of Confucianism of the epoch are deconstructed and examined throughout the study. Concepts such as archaeology and genealogy are explained; these are later used as methodological tools for analysing the discourse under examination. Also, by focusing on rhetoric and pragmatics, the different thought processes of the scholars are presented and an analysis of their eloquence, effective use of language, techniques, and the contours of utterances that bestow significance upon specific contexts are all described. By way of pragmatics, rhetorical forms of discourse will be carefully observed, making it possible to discern how utterances give meaning to a specific context. Likewise, hermeneutics is used to examine the interpretative approaches of the scholars, and this then becomes the “Realproblematik” of hermeneutics—explained at length in the chapter. Additionally, to date, there are no studies on Confucianism or Confucian discourse discussing the role of parrhesia as an ethical and political reflection of “speaking the truth” or “frank speech.” This reflection can be taken as an imperative element to assess the relevance and practicality of modern Confucianism and its wider socio-political implications. The core of this study is found in Chapters 3 to 5. These are the discussion chapters. Each chapter singles out specific topics and key issues regarding the behind contemporary overseas Confucianism and their composition. Chapter 3 begins by assessing the background and motivations of the scholars. Here, the main topics range from the preliminary engagements each scholar has made with the Confucian tradition to the question of what distinguishes their approach from other scholars. This chapter is of crucial importance as a means of understanding the hermeneutical thinking of the scholars. An ontological assessment is used to examine their understanding of the tradition, and their relationship to it. Chapter 4 sums up the challenges faced by the interviewees when they engage in interpreting the classical texts and other works on Confucianism. Interpretation is decisive when analysing discourse. Each scholar engages or understands the tradition differently, so their of the tradition and the logic behind their research are both key for understanding what direction modern Confucianism might take. This chapter also discusses the development of Confucianism in the twenty-first century, its contemporary relevance, and various efforts made by the scholars to preserve the tradition and making it pertinent today. This helps provide some guidance to the modern relevance and praxis of Confucianism. Perhaps the most thought-provoking of all is Chapter 5. This chapter illustrates fundamental matters concerning the political relevance of Confucianism in diverse contexts. Some scholars in the field have been producing ideas or theories on politicised forms of Confucianism (or, as they will be called here, Confucian designation-neologisms) that could be compatible with modernity by making conscious efforts and reflections to help resolve paradoxes about the feasibility of Confucianism in the near future. Moreover, Confucian teachings are increasingly being discussed outside Confucian civilisations. Because of this, it is essential to investigate the consequences of mingling Confucian and non-Confucian civilisations—Western in particular. Another item discussed in this chapter is the juxtaposed efforts of the Chinese government officials and scholars of Confucianism to aim for a xiaokang shehui 小康社會 (moderately well-off society). The term xiaokang 小康 has been widely used by early Confucians and more recently has been part of the political rhetoric of the Chinese government.

30 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

The term xiaokang entails ethical, social, and political aspects of the tradition that could be used in a modern sense for improving the condition of society. Finally, the conclusion is designed to wrap up the study and to consolidate certain key points of this research project. Here, important aspects of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse are addressed in order to demonstrate the feasibility of a pragmatic political philosophy; one that can be established for the purposes of consolidating a harmonious and well-ordered society. It is hoped that this project will provide a new perspective on contemporary Confucian discourse from the point of view of a selected group of people who belong to a “meta- generation” of scholars of Confucianism.26 Their thought and ideas remain instrumental to the development of modern Confucian studies, and the evolution of Confucianism will be heavily dependent upon the interpretations of these scholars. Their discourses address several aspects of Confucianism which are framed in terms of specific dialectical arguments that highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the tradition. Although the future empirical effects of these discourses remain uncertain, the present study evokes the efforts and démarches of overseas Confucian scholarship which will be of instrumental importance in defining the future of Chinese social and political practices. The latter, in turn, will resonate beyond the borders of China itself.

26 Contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism are classified in this study as a “meta-generation” of scholars since the majority of them does not fall under the already proposed generational division of New Confucian scholars.

CHAPTER 1

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE

What is contemporary overseas Confucianism, and how did it come about? To understand how a tradition of more than two thousand five hundred years has come to its present form, it is necessary to briefly examine its historical development. The ru1 tradition, often translated in English as “Confucianism,” is a set of doctrines based on the comportments, teachings, and wisdom of the ancient sages of China. These doctrines serve as guiding principles for stimulating good governance while producing a harmonious society. Confucianism relates to both theoretical and empirical matters. From self-cultivation and familial relationships to ritual propriety and the rule of government, this tradition aspires to inculcate virtue through compassion, moral conduct, and benevolence among individuals. Confucianism is an ethical socio-political philosophy whose aim is to improve the civil conditions in a practical way in order to assist with the advancement of humankind. Contemporary Confucian scholarship often borrows Mou Zongsan’s division of the tradition into three epochs. This division serves as a way to distinguish the progression of the tradition, the major challenges it faced, and its different interpretations and reinterpretations since its formation. The first epoch, classical Confucianism, dates to the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods (770-221 BCE). Initiated by Confucius himself, it was one of the most influential of the Hundred Schools of Thought of the time. Confucianism was later suppressed during the Qin dynasty (221-206 BCE), but it was revived during the Han dynasty (206 BCE- 220 CE) and eventually thrived as the state ideology. Classical Confucianism is still regarded as the most orthodox form of Confucian traditions, and it is founded upon benevolence and following a humanistic approach; it encourages kindness, loyalty, and harmony among individuals; and it stresses the importance of filial piety, hierarchical relationships, and of

1 The term ru 儒 can be traced back to the Zhou dynasty (1100?–256 BCE). Confucius’ interpretations of the ancient texts reshaped the way people looked at ru (i.e. the tradition of scholars), and ru later became associated with the name of Confucius and his disciples. In ancient China, ru was concomitant to several unified human undertakings: following the principles of ren (benevolence) and yi (righteousness) which are basic characteristics of a junzi (exemplary person or authoritative person); mastering the ancient classics, using one’s expertise in social order to function as a political advisor; being harmonically engaged in all social situations; and practicing lenient asceticism, goodness, and humility just to mention a few. Setting apart the origins of ru, during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, Confucian scholars and critics of Confucianism gave a new meaning to the term. It became and represented the central thought of Confucius and his disciples. Confucius is regarded as the most prominent transmitter and interpreter of the ru tradition. Scholars dating back to the Han dynasty have argued that experts in the six arts and those who assisted the ruler to follow the way of the yin and yang were often denoted as ru. This and other arguments have been a matter of debate among modern Confucian scholars. For a detailed description and meaning of the term, see Xinzhong Yao, An Introduction to Confucianism (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 17-21; Lai Chen, ““Ru”: Xunzi’s Thoughts on Ru and Its Significance,” Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4, no. 2 (2009).

31

32 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM respect for authority. Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, and Dong Zhongshu are its main representatives. The second epoch, Neo-Confucianism, has its roots during the late Tang dynasty (618– 907)—when Buddhism and Daoism had already begun to challenge the well-established state ideology based on Confucianism—and it was further strengthened by Confucian intellectuals during the Song (960–1279) and Ming (1368-1644) dynasties. Han Yu 韓愈 (768-824) was among the pioneers of this movement in the Tang era, and Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017-1073) one of the first to play the role of invigorating it at the beginning of the Song period. The Neo- Confucian intellectual Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200) established a syncretic system which was “based on the teachings of the Book of Mengzi, the , and the . He also incorporated into his system the ideas from the Book of Xunzi, the Book of Changes, the School of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, Buddhism, and Daoism.”2 Another representative of the Neo-Confucian movement was Wang Yangming 王陽明 (1479-1529). His philosophy was based on the study of the heart-mind (xinxue 心學), which is regarded as the only source of and universal principles. The main distinction between the first and second epochs is that Neo-Confucianism was revitalised by incorporating Buddhist and Daoist philosophical understandings into Confucian studies, and more importantly still, this is the time when Confucianism spread substantially to neighbouring territories (e.g. Japan and Korea). The third and current epoch, New Confucianism, originates as an intellectual and philosophical movement in the late nineteenth century. It was developed during the Republican years (1912-1949) as a response to the iconoclasm stemming from by the eagerness of the Chinese to modernise the system in Western terms. At the peak of the May Fourth Movement in 1919, traditional Chinese thought and practices were being replaced by “science” and “democracy” among other Western ideas of modernity. This marked the demise of Confucianism as the socio-political foundation of China. Distrustful of the newly established Communist regime in 1949, many scholars representative of the New Confucian movement fled from the country—mainly to Hong Kong and Taiwan where it was still possible to continue discussing and studying Confucianism. Those who remained in the mainland had great difficulties continuing with their scholarship through Mao Zedong’s 毛澤東 regime (1949- 1976). It was only after the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) that Confucianism was revitalised and opened up for discussion in mainland Chinese academic circles, thereby allowing intellectuals and scholars to conduct studies of the tradition. At present, academic discussions on Confucianism are no longer confined to Chinese Confucian intellectuals. Contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, for instance, comprises the interpretations, ideas, and opinions of Chinese and non-Chinese academics living in China and abroad whose works are mainly written in English or languages other than Chinese. Modern Confucian discourse can be split into two groups: mainland Confucian discourse and overseas Confucian discourse. The former is mostly comprised of the discourses of scholars from mainland China (including contributions of the so-called fourth generation 3 of New

2 Yao, 105. 3 The scholars pertaining to this group distinguish themselves from the overseas New Confucians, and many do not consider themselves as the fourth generation in the lineage with early New Confucians.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 33

Confucians). The latter includes the discourses of third-generation New Confucians and of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism. The central concern of this study is to show how the discourse of overseas Chinese Confucian scholars and overseas Sinologists are paving the way for a pragmatic reconstruction of Confucianism in contemporary times. The first three generations of New Confucians advanced and disseminated the tradition outside the mainland; hence, this can be considered the birth of “overseas Confucianism”—which is notable for blending Western concepts and ideas with Confucianism. Today, this tradition is being portrayed by many scholars in the field as a plausible alternative to Western socio-political and philosophical ideologies—without aiming to overshadow them. In other words, modern studies on Confucianism, and its current interpretations, seem to have the potential to serve as a basis for developing a novel, quasi- comprehensive political philosophy with Confucian characteristics. The current chapter addresses the development and evolution of contemporary overseas Confucianism. The teachings of Confucius have transcended generations after generations of scholars either through master-student relationships or the practice of self-cultivation via an arduous study of the Confucian classics and other philosophical texts. Such teachings do not need to be handed down directly from master to student, although it is always useful to have proper guidance on how to address or interpret these teachings or texts. Overseas scholarship on Confucianism is on the rise, and numerous literary works are being produced thus permitting the current wave of the tradition to be broader and more inclusive than ever. For this reason, the spread of modern Confucianism will be discussed as well. Such dissemination by overseas scholars is taking place through lectures and publications which are crucial for the growth and continuation of the Confucian tradition. It is also argued in this chapter that, along with New Confucian thought, the interpretations of contemporary overseas scholars should be taken as meaningful contributions to the New Confucian movement. The final section of this chapter presents a brief overview of the leading contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism who have all agreed to be interviewed for this study.

Transmission and Adoption of Ru

Often translated as the “transmission of the Way,” daotong 道統 has been used and adopted by many Confucian intellectuals since the Song dynasty.4 There are numerous interpretations of daotong in terms of its metaphysical, ethical, philosophical, and political framing. Those debates and criticisms over daotong have been ongoing for centuries and are still a matter of discussion among scholars of Confucianism today. In its modern connotation, daotong is generally attributed to Neo-Confucian thinker Zhu Xi as he used this term to explicate the restoration of the “true Way” after a prior extended period of disruption. Tang dynasty Confucian intellectual Han Yu observed an interruption of the daotong transmission after Mencius’ death. His “On the Origins of the Way” (Yuandao 原道)

4Other translations of daotong include: “uninterrupted transmission of the Dao,” “orthodox tradition,” “repossessing of the Way,” “interconnecting thread of the Way,” and “succession of the Way.”

34 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM explains that the Way he portrays is different from the Way of the Daoists and the Buddhists. He clarifies that this “Way” was handed down from the early sages (Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, King Wen, King Wu, and the Duke of Zhou) to Confucius. Then Confucius transmitted the Way to his disciples. Finally, taught Zisi (Confucius’ grandson) who later became the teacher of Mencius; but after Mencius died, the transmission of the Way ceased. 5 Other prominent Confucians including Xunzi, Dong Zhongshu, Yang Xiong 揚雄, and Wang Tong 王通 discussed “the Way,” but their discourse on daotong was not as appealing and extensive as that of Han Yu per se. Nearly a thousand years after Mencius’ death, Song Neo-Confucian philosophers—including Zhou Dunyi, the Cheng Brothers (Cheng Hao 程顥 and Cheng Yi 程 頤 ), Zhang Zai 張載, and Zhu Xi—were able to restore and materialise the daotong transmission.6 By looking back at the methodical and gradual progression of Confucianism, it is easy to agree that contemporary scholars have insisted on further developing the tradition to help it resonate more clearly with current concerns in the world today. Their intent is not to modify the tradition in its entirety as some sort of new philosophy or doctrine, but they do wish, at the very least, to adjust it to the necessities, conditions, and problems of the epoch. Incorporating traditional Chinese philosophy into the current social and political realm of the world—one that is predominantly influenced by Western ideas—is not easy. Although some scholars prefer to dissociate Confucianism from Western views, it is nonetheless challenging to secure its application and practicality (in or outside China) without building some syncretic links with other ideologies. This syncretism, however, should not be equated with the ti-yong 體用 (substance and function) concept which was invigorated during the Qing dynasty and early the Republican years.7 Chinese bureaucratic reformers like Li Hongzhang 李鴻章 (1823-1901) and Zhang Zhidong 张之洞 (1837-1909) used the ti-yong notion to preserve Chinese learning as substance while using Western learning as function (zhongxue wei ti, xixue wei yong 中學為體西學為用). The modern historian of China Joseph R. Levenson had a negative view of the ti-yong realisation. He regarded it as a fallacy and total failure:

The more western learning came to be accepted as the practical instrument of life and power, the more Confucianism ceased to be t’i, essence, the naturally believed-in of without a rival, and became instead an historical inheritance, preserved, if at all, as a romantic token of no-surrender to a foreign rival which had changed the essence of Chinese life.8

5 Ying-shih Yu, Chinese History and Culture, Volume 2: Seventeenth Century Through Twentieth Century (Columbia University Press, 2016), 154. 6 See Joseph A. Adler, Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi’s Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi (State University of New York Press, 2014), 25-26; Anne D. Birdwhistell, Li Yong (1627-1705) and Epistemological Dimensions of Confucian Philosophy (Stanford University Press, 1996), 51. 7 The ti-yong concept had been used in the past by Confucianists, Daoists, and Buddhists to interpret and give meaning to the dichotomies concerning phenomenal and metaphysical realms. 8 Joseph R. Levenson, Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: The Problem of Intellectual Continuity (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958), 61.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 35

Rather than overshadowing one tradition with the other, the more valuable and practical items found within modern Confucianism can be used to improve the current state of affairs of China, in East Asian societies already familiar with the tradition, and in the rest of the world. Current research and studies suggest Confucianism may be able to improve the socio-political and moral conditions of the modern world. For example, John H. Berthrong has confidence in the tradition, and he that “New Confucianism will have an impact on the philosophical, spiritual, social, and ethical development of global philosophy.”9 If this is true, it is just a matter of time before others gradually accept Confucianism as an alternative that can respond to many paradoxical patterns modern society has faced in the last few centuries. Confucianism and traditional Chinese philosophy have certain latent qualities and benefits that are serviceable elements for shaping and improving certain aspects of education, culture, politics, society, and economy. Cheng Chung-ying observes that “it is through a conscious and conscientious onto-hermeneutical thinking today that Chinese philosophy in a contemporary sense will develop and grow into a powerful intellectual enterprise in which the past will merge with the future and the East (the Chinese) will merge with the West and vice versa.”10 His hypothesis calls for an amalgamation of through a philosophical dialogue that may, perhaps, be able to serve as a starting point for formulating a more refined and philosophical understanding of humankind. Confucianism is a complex yet rich humanistic tradition that has much to contribute in diverse fields. Most recently, it has been associated with human rights, democracy, management, capitalism, and ecology—all of which would have been anachronistic considerations a hundred years ago. Currently, contemporary scholars are making efforts to devise novel ways of applying the tenets of Confucianism to endow them with a more contemporary significance. As mentioned earlier, some contemporary scholars prefer to revive orthodox forms of the tradition while others feel more comfortable conducting comparative studies. Contemporary studies on Confucianism have undergone a series of exegetical instances due to the comprehensive range of content in the field. Its modern characterisation has never been as complex as it is today; thus, scholars have been compelled to make retrospective interpretations of Confucian works from the beginning of the Confucian tradition until now. This has resulted in an overwhelming variety of interpretations, including some very specific ideas, which are not always mutually sympathetic to one another. Because the transmission of the Confucian Way is not necessarily handed down from master to student, how can the transmission and adoption of ru be attained? And, who or what defines the “true” essence of Confucianism in today’s world? Especially, if there are countless ways of approaching it. Even Confucius was not consistent in his responses when asked the same question at different times. He would give a different answer to each specific person depending on the situation at hand; maybe even depending on his mood or state of mind. As a result, the transmission and adoption of Confucianism depends heavily on the thought processes involved

9 John Berthrong, “From Beijing to Boston: The Future Contributions of the Globalization of New Confucianism,” in Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, ed. Fenggang Yang and Joseph B. Tamney (Brill, 2011), 131. 10 Chung-ying Cheng, “General Introduction,” in Hermeneutical Thinking in Chinese Philosophy, ed. Lauren F. Pfister (Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 2.

36 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM in both the transmitter and receiver. Ideally, an answer to a question should be consistent; this way, it will give a sense of assurance, legitimacy, and reliability. But when it comes to phenomenology and subjective practices, different results will turn out well for different people and, at the same time, different understandings or outcomes will inevitably unfold. Confucius depicted himself as a mere transmitter of ancient wisdom, and many of his followers adopted this approach. Xunzi wrote, “The noble person who studies widely and examines himself each day will become clear in his knowledge and faultless in his conduct…. [I]f you do not hear the words handed down from the ancient kings, you will not know the greatness of learning and inquiry.”11 This reflects Xunzi’s views on embracing knowledge through self-cultivation; he believes daily self-evaluation will eventually lead the individual to become a virtuous person. He makes clear that to “hear the words handed down” (i.e. transmission) is vital to understanding and knowing “the greatness of learning and inquiry” (i.e. adoption). This can help the individual to evolve into a creative person; however, the adoption of knowledge through arduous studying and self-examination is even greater as it can lead the way to sagehood. Adopting and putting into practice the teachings of the ancient sage kings was the ultimate purpose of Confucius, his disciples, and many of his followers from classical Confucians to New Confucian thinkers. In today’s academic circles, reputation and scholarly recognition is a priority for many scholars. Confucius said, “Men of antiquity studied to improve themselves; men today study to impress others.” 12 This passage is quite relevant nowadays, as many scholars publish numerous works in attempts to leave behind a legacy solely for status or recognition (i.e. to impress others) rather than engaging in self-cultivation or embarking on a journey towards becoming wiser or reaching some kind of sagacity (i.e. to improve themselves). Also, the internet has become a platform for academic competition; and with the development of global communications, thousands of electronic journals, websites, and other platforms (e.g. blogs or video sites) are making publications and other scholarly sources available to millions. Institutions of higher education praise scholars who publish widely, but it seems that quantity often trumps quality. Publishing is a requirement for most professors; it is part of their duties as academicians, and it is often noted in their performance appraisals. In many instances, they are pressured to publish for the sake of elevating the rankings of the institutions they work for. This assumption might appear a pessimistic representation of the diligence of scholars and educators. Many, indeed, might feel troubled by these allegations; however, there are two positive outcomes that can be drawn from it. Firstly, publishing goes hand in hand with investigating things. Any scholar who wants to publish, regardless of his or her motives, must conduct research. By conducting research, the scholar acquires or adopts knowledge that he or she intends to transmit via the publication in question. As a result, the scholar has gained some new knowledge or else has confirmed or invalidated facts that he or she has evaluated, analysed, or criticised using his or her own outlook. Hopefully, this new data is then to be used in a way that can help others.

11 As cited in Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition: Volume 1: From Earliest Times to 1600, Second ed., 2 vols., vol. 1 (Columbia University Press, 1999), 161. 12 Analects 14.24.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 37

Secondly, any work conducted by a scholar and successfully published will reach an audience. Many people will or could be benefited by the work performed by the scholar; the new knowledge gathered and published becomes available to the public and can be embraced by people interested in that particular field. From these two outcomes, it has been demonstrated that the discourses of scholars are transmitted and adopted through their initiatives—regardless of whether this is done in order to improve themselves or to impress others. What counts is the research; the quality of good, solid research. Ideally, scholars should transmit their knowledge to prompt, what ancient Greeks called, philosophia and (i.e. love of wisdom and practical wisdom). Many scholars of Confucianism want to demonstrate how exciting and relevant their research is, and they want to elucidate this to the public by means of their publications and interpretations. Thousands of books and essays have effectively assessed the importance of Confucianism (and its existing scholarly discourses) in modern times. Chen Lai, for example, states that Confucius’ “love of learning” (hao xue 好學) “is a fundamental idea central to his thought.” Chen believes the Confucian love of learning is not a practical virtue but an intellectual virtue which can be nurtured through education. 13 Education could be defined as the process of imparting knowledge or receiving instruction. In other words, informing or acquiring systematic information; this is synonymous with transmitting or adopting knowledge. One of Confucius’ philosophical concerns was to acquire (and impart) knowledge or wisdom on how to live a principled and become an exemplary person (junzi 君子); for him, attaining knowledge was not merely about acquiring information. So, as pointed out by Chen, if Confucius’ “love of learning” is central to his thought, then education is of fundamental importance for upholding the values and principles put forward by the ru tradition. Western figures like John Dewey, Paul Claudel, Ezra Pound, , and Alfred N. Whitehead valued the importance of Confucianism (and other Eastern traditions)—focusing specifically on aspects that lead to personal growth through self-cultivation. Moreover, institutions of higher education, academic departments, and research centres play an important role in the transmission and adoption of the Confucian tradition. In the past, Confucian-inspired instruction was held at traditional schools (sishu 私塾) and Confucian academies (shuyuan 書院). These traditional schools housed young, male pupils who were trained in the classics, but their popularity declined during the Republican era. And while the teaching methods of traditional schools were retained by those who had already studied under the old system, most Confucian academies vanished by the mid-twentieth century. Confucian education consisted in reciting and memorising texts which were often not understood by the pupils on account of their complexity.14 Confucian academies were integral in establishing master-student relationships through knowledge transmission. Their purpose was to train individuals for the imperial civil service examinations, so anyone wishing to become a government official in imperial China would have a better chance to enter if they attended and studied under one of these academies.

13 Lai Chen, “ and Confucian Ethics,” in Virtue Ethics and Confucianism, ed. Stephen C. Angle and Michael A. Slote (Routledge, 2013), 19-20. 14 Sébastien Billioud and Joël Thoraval, The Sage and the People: The Confucian Revival in China (Oxford University Press, 2015), 19-20.

38 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

The gradual demise of these schools provoked discontent among many, as this type of knowledge-transmission method was progressively replaced by the new Western-based education system implemented in China. Even people who were not overtly friendly to Confucianism recognised the importance of educating the Chinese citizenry with traditional transmission methods—among those people were Mao Zedong and the Chinese writer, , and frontrunner of the New Culture Movement Hu Shi 胡適 (1891-1962).15 Nevertheless, a few early New Confucians were successful in starting or continuing the Confucian academy system, which was aimed at producing groups of Confucian intellectuals in post-imperial China. Ma Yifu, for example, opened an academy in Sichuan. His main objective was to train individuals on inner wisdom and self-cultivation by using a Buddhist approach. Similarly, Zhang Dongsun and Zhang Junmai’s academy in Yunnan focused on self- cultivation; but unlike Ma’s school, this academy incorporated a Western-style curriculum combining Chinese traditional transmission methods with the Western education system that had recently been introduced to the country.16 More recently, in 1996, the Yangming Jingshe 陽明精舍 (Yangming Academy) was founded by Jiang Qing, an advocate of the social and political institutionalisation of Confucianism. It is plausible to consider his academy as one possible representation of what a shuyuan might look like in modern times.17 Both traditional schools and Confucian academies were recognised for shaping forthcoming generations of Chinese intellectuals and imperial officials. Those who obtained proper guidance through this education system were not only motivated to acquire the necessary skills to master the Confucian classics, they also aimed to put the knowledge thus acquired into practice. This was the mind-set of the intellectual community during the Republican years. Hence, if this type of educational system were to be reincorporated into the China of today, the nation might end up producing a new “sect” of Confucian literati, just as it did in the past. For example, in recent years, the Chinese government has stressed the importance of guoxue 國學 (national studies or state learning), which focuses on the study of Chinese traditional culture and history. Guoxue must be emphasised when speaking of transmission and adoption of the Confucian tradition. Many contemporary scholars have set themselves to defining, advocating, arguing against, commenting on, or studying guoxue and its implications in twenty- first-century China. Guoxue in China began in the early twentieth century as a means of cherishing and promoting traditional Chinese culture; however, it was suppressed for several decades until it was recovered in the 1990s thus becoming the so-called “guoxue fever” 國學 熱.18 Guoxue has been a matter of discussion among scholars both inside and outside of China. In a lecture given by French Sinologist Anne Cheng, she stated that “since the beginning of the

15 Ibid., 22. 16 Ibid., 24-25. 17 Yong Chen, Confucianism as Religion: Controversies and Consequences (Brill, 2012), 176-77. 18 For a detailed understanding of the “guoxue fever” see Arif Dirlik, “The National Learning Revival,” China Perspectives Special Issue, no. 1 (2011). All works included in this issue concern topics on guoxue that range from its modern revival and enthusiasm to controversies and key actors within the field. See also John Makeham, Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Harvard University Press, 2008), 67-72. Makeham explores the development and modernisation of guoxue during the 1980s and 1990s making an emphasis on the revival and significance of Confucianism, its promoters, and contestants.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 39

21st century, the intellectual world has been agitated by yet another fever, that of the traditional revival, which means that China is by now endeavouring to assert full mastery on the reappropriation of its own past” (emphasis added).19 The leading scholar of Chinese history Yu Ying-shih, also opined on this topic:

The concept of “guoxue,” which ceased to draw attention for more than four decades, was resuscitated almost overnight in mainland China in the so-called “guoxue fever” of the 1990s… A variety of forums appeared on TV; several prestigious universities established guoxue training classes in order to nourish “spiritual resources” among management personnel; some local governments even organised the movement for elementary students to read the “Four Books” and the “Five Classics.”20

The popularity of guoxue extended to groups outside academia. Sébastien Billioud and Joël Thoraval believe that “one of the consequences of these guoxue classes for entrepreneurs and official cadres is the production of new types of master-disciple relationships.” Popular courses are offered at two top institutions of higher education in Beijing, but these programs are primarily used for commercial purposes which diminish the purpose of embracing Confucian teachings.21 Confucianism is often associated with the term guoxue. Chen Lai has examined the term to explicate its origins and to see what it means today. He states that the guoxue of China dates back to the early twentieth century, when several Chinese scholars borrowed the term “national studies” from the Japanese. Japanese guoxue focused on the study of the Japanese classics, history, organisation, and literature of pre-modern times; especially emphasising the linguistic aspects of the classics and of ancient culture to help distinguish Japan from China.22 In China, by contrast, guoxue was used to separate itself from the West. In the early twentieth century, guoxue became “an academic and positivist look at traditional Chinese culture (history, philosophy, language and literature). This understanding of the term also included popular ways of transmitting ancient learning.”23 In other words, it promoted ancient Chinese scholarship, which is ultimately associated with Confucian education. Chen Lai’s teacher Zhang Dainian 張岱年, a famous Marxist intellectual historian, gives a more extensive definition of guoxue. He describes guoxue as the traditional learning or scholarship of China covering the following disciplines: philosophy, classical studies, literature, historiography, political science, military science, natural science, religion, arts, among others. Zhang also clarifies that subjects contained within the natural sciences such as astronomy,

19 Anne Cheng, “Chair of Chinese Intellectual History,” La Lettre du Collège de France (2009): 17. 20 As quoted in Dong Liu, “National Learning (Guoxue): Six Perspectives and Six Definitions,” in The National Learning Revival, ed. Arif Dirlik (2011), 46. 21 Billioud and Thoraval, 40. 22 Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a group of Japanese intellectuals began the kokugaku こくがく movement. Kokugaku literally means “native studies” or “national studies” in Japanese, and it was launched as a response to Chinese influence and the study of China or of the Chinese classics (kangaku かんが く), particularly Neo-Confucianism, to rediscover the roots of ancient Japanese traditions and culture. 23 Lai Chen, Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View, Brill’s Humanities in China Library (Brill, 2009), 334-36.

40 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM mathematics, geography, agronomy, water conservation, and medicine are also included in national studies.24 Although national studies ultimately coincide with the idea of transmission of knowledge in diverse fields of study, it is important to take into account the existing differences of interpretation regarding both what it actually means to transmit Confucianism, and how the transmission of Confucian teachings has evolved over time. For example, the Neo-Confucian intellectual Zhu Xi interprets the transmitting-innovating dichotomy found in the Analects 7.28 as follows: “to transmit” is simply handing down the old, and “to create” is crafting or producing a beginning. 25 Writing commentaries or prefaces on the classics was a common practice that helped to develop and transmit ancient knowledge. As a result, the tradition was continuously evolving, expanding, and maturing as a doctrine.26 Different transmission methods have emerged as the Confucian tradition developed over time. These methods, however, rely on interpretation, and they are also context-dependent. Currently, contemporary scholars tend to have idiosyncratic ways of interpreting the teachings either of Confucius or of the tradition as a whole. Some are orientated towards onto- hermeneutical interpretations (i.e. they develop subjective interpretations based on the nature of how they understand the Confucian tradition by means of the extensive collection of texts they have encountered, from classical to newer texts linked to Confucianism), and others opt for pragmatic interpretations (i.e. they attempt to advance some of the theories espoused by Confucianism into more practical applications). Transmission in the Confucian sense is about handing down ancient wisdom. Once such wisdom has been accepted and adopted, people are likely to adapt it to their environments in an attempt to embody the teachings of the early sages which are particularly concerned with self-cultivation and moral principles. Tu Wei-ming, a contemporary Confucian philosopher, makes a remarkable distinction between transmission and innovation (or creation). He places an emphasis on the methods, moral obligations, and the importance of knowledge acquisition:

Transmission, unlike making, involves a commitment to the continuous well-being of a chosen heritage. To undertake such a commitment, one must have a sophisticated appreciation of the strength and limitation of that which is to be inherited. Without such a critical awareness, “believing in and loving the ancients” indicates no more than a nostalgic attachment to the past. But the Confucian choice obviously signifies that transmission is more profound and more difficult than making. Since the person who transmits is indebted to the origins of his own existence, he feels a strong moral obligation toward those who significantly contributed to the formation of his own tradition. His mission is not merely to adapt himself to his immediate environment but to see to it that the new world he attempts to shape is faithful to see the intentions of his forefathers. Accordingly, transmission does not simply make something new but, in doing so,

24 Zhang sees Confucianism more as a philosophy than as a religion because, as one can clearly see from his definition of guoxue, philosophy is the first item he names, and religion is the penultimate item. See Zhang Dainian 張岱年, Guoxue jin lun 國學今論 [Present Discussions of ] (Liaoning Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 1995), 2. 25 Chen, Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View, 327. 26 Ibid.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 41

undertakes the responsibility of handing down the wisdom of the old as well. Thus it involves both moral obligation and historical consciousness.27

Generation after generation, Confucian teachings have been passed down or studied by individuals who find them worth of learning, exploring, or scrutinising. In recent times, plenty of scholars have chosen to continue Confucius’ humanistic mission of transmitting the ancient wisdom. These teachings are not and should not be confined to a particular society. Thus, the current amalgamation of classical, Neo, and New Confucian interpretations of wisdom, along with the most rational discourses and political theories of the epoch, suggests that it is indeed possible to move towards a new dynamic and adequately viable socio-political trajectory, one that is capable of expressing the ideal of a unified and harmonious global society. Leading experts in the field are aiming to blend tradition with modernity using hermeneutics as a tool for gauging the suitability of Confucianism in today’s social and political domains. Thanks to overseas scholars of Confucianism, the tradition is reaching a wide variety of audiences, and with the economic rise and socio-political progress of China and other Confucian civilisations, world leaders and other powerful entities have acquired a special interest in understanding these cultures. The knowledge and philosophies behind contemporary Confucian discourse can help to educate people in power. These can encourage such leaders to revisit humane principles in an attempt to create more sustainable social and political programmes and reforms and, ultimately, to effectively establish a new moral order among the various societies in the world today. Needless to say, the participation of the general public is essential; thus, the transmission and adoption of Confucian doctrines must be made available and directed to the general public. Allowing Confucian principles to be learned and studied at different levels of the education system might serve as a practical way of creating awareness of the moral nature endowed upon human beings. Only through authoritative governance and by creating a structural framework of incentives that is committed to enhancing the well-being of all, will it be possible to produce a well-ordered society.

Expanding the “Third Wave”

Confucianism has proved to be readily adaptable to diverse cultural, social, and political environments. Confucian doctrines endorse ethical and moral values and strongly uphold virtue (de 德), humaneness (ren 仁), righteousness (yi 義), propriety (li 禮), wisdom (zhi 智), trustworthiness (xin 信), and filial piety (xiao 孝). The tradition has played an enormous role in the modern socio-political and economic development of East Asia, as it is deeply rooted in the cultural values of the region. In the last few decades, many scholars have engaged in reinterpreting the tradition; the aim being to modernise and internationalise the teachings of Confucius and his most distinguished followers in an effort to unfold Confucianism’s primary

27 Wei-ming Tu, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness (State University of New York Press, 1989), 42-43.

42 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM characteristics and to relate them to a contemporary context. It is commonly believed that is possible to merge and synthesise Confucian doctrines with many Western ideas that are dominant today; thus, some scholars have endeavoured to promote the Confucian tradition overseas (i.e. outside East and Southeast Asia). Although China is the home of Confucianism, this tradition is one that is relatively sympathetic to other cultures. There have been some ideological variations throughout specific phases of Confucian history, but Confucianism has proven itself capable of adjusting to the different settings it has encountered by constantly remodelling its trajectory and synthesising its own original ideas with those found in other schools of thought.28 Modern Confucianism is following the same pathway; and if it is to find enduring status as a major global philosophical archetype, it cannot avoid the task of “confronting” Western ideas and globalisation—two things that were actually foreign to the tradition about a century ago. While Confucianism—as a normative moral and political philosophy—has the potential to have an antagonistic or threatening relationship with other ideologies or systems of beliefs, it is also likely to embrace and welcome non-Confucian ideas in an effort to bring about harmonious relationships among all people. Nevertheless, the challenges faced by Confucianism today are not only purely occasioned by encounters with Western or other traditions; there are genuine differences of opinions among Confucian experts and enthusiasts as to how this tradition should be amended in a contemporary context, and this has resulted in a number of predicaments. Since there is no single way of interpreting this tradition, its contemporary interpretations should be taken as an inspirational attempt to nourish it as a valuable tradition in order to establish authentic empathy worldwide. Many experts believe Confucianism can provide solutions to modern day problems as it might serve as a path for individuals towards righteous behaviours; and thus, its principles can improve the intellectual state, spiritual condition, and socio-political development of China and other countries—these are benefits that Western tendencies such as , , and some forms capitalism do not necessarily offer. Several studies on the contemporary relevance of the Confucian philosophy have been conducted in order to gauge whether there is anything in the tradition that is capable of elevating the livelihoods of people. The so-called “third wave” or “third epoch” of Confucianism is being developed through publications, lectures, and other platforms; the purpose of these is to disseminate interpretative understandings of the tradition by Confucian intellectuals and other experts in the field. The third wave is concomitant with the New Confucian movement, yet it is uncertain how it will unfold. Confucian scholar Ni Peimin believes it “will depend on how people read and re-read the Confucian texts.”29 In other words, the future of Confucianism lies in how it will be interpreted by future generations. Therefore, Confucian hermeneutics play a significant role in any dialectics concerning the modern practicality of Confucianism. Whether the third wave will successfully generate positive exchanges of ideas among civilisations is still a matter of

28 Yao, 31. 29 Peimin Ni, Understanding the Analects of Confucius: A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations (State University of New York Press, 2017), 14.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 43 debate. When texts are analysed and interpreted, the author exposes his or her understandings of the examined text to the reader and then the reader renders specific meanings or assumptions to the ideas exposed by the interpreter. As a result, the people’s understanding of the third wave of Confucianism arises from the textual interpretations of Confucian scholars and, more recently, from several other experts who fall under the category of overseas scholars of Confucianism. These individuals are expanding the third wave by producing more scholarly works which are reaching audiences beyond the Mandarin-speaking communities of academia. This has enabled people to reflect upon the modern views and practicality of Confucianism while simultaneously gaining access to the current revived phase of Confucianism in China, which is also being disseminated outside the borders of China itself. David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames describe the third wave as “a phenomenon of real importance to the philosopher interested in the mutual engagement of China and the West.”30 But it is not only philosophers who are interested in this mutual engagement; theologians, political scientists, economists, and business people, among others, envision a better world arising from the mutual appreciation and assistance of these two cultural constructs. Noting points in common is, perhaps, a good way to start, but unfortunately, there have been instances where misunderstandings and misinterpretations have led to ideological rivalry. In the early twentieth century, the sociologist Max Weber was quite critical of Confucianism. He believed this tradition prevented the rise of modern capitalism (stimulated by the Protestant ethic) in China.31 But several scholars, including Tu Wei-ming and Yu Ying-shih, defend Confucianism from Weber’s allegations and insist the Confucian ethic is equal to, and could possibly provide better outcomes than, the Protestant ethic that materialised in Europe.32 While it is important to understand that certain evolutionary aspects of Confucianism have allowed the tradition to adjust itself to modernity, the third wave of Confucianism is still controversial as it incorporates ideas from early and modern Confucian scholars, and most recently, it includes new experts in the field. It is necessary to distinguish the key ideas of major contemporary scholars of Confucianism to understand how the tradition is developing today. During the 1980s and 1990s, New Confucian scholarship flourished in mainland China, and since the early 2000s, many studies in English on New Confucianism and contemporary Confucian academic discourse have been released.33 One common trait among previous studies on New Confucian discourse is that none of them either focus on or address in detail the discourse of overseas scholars of

30 David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (State University of New York Press, 1987), 313. 31 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (Routledge, 2001); Max Weber, The Religion of China: Confucianism and , trans. Hans H. Gerth (Free Press, 1951). 32 Wei-ming Tu, Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (State University of New York Press, 1985), 10-11; Ying-shih Yu, Chinese History and Culture, Volume 1: Sixth Century B.C.E. To Seventeenth Century (Columbia University Press, 2016), 208-21. 33 See for example, Umberto Bresciani, Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement (Taipei Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies, 2001); Shu-hsien Liu, Essentials of Contemporary Neo-Confucian Philosophy, Resources in Asian Philosophy and Religion (Praeger, 2003); John Makeham, New Confucianism: A Critical Examination (Palgrave, 2003); Seung-hwan Lee, A Topography of Confucian Discourse: Politico- Philosophical Reflections on Confucian Discourse since Modernity, trans. Jaeyoon Song and Seung-hwan Lee (Homa & Sekey Books, 2006); Makeham, Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse; Jesús Solé-Farràs, New Confucianism in Twenty-First Century China: The Construction of a Discourse (Routledge, 2014).

44 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Confucianism—except those that mention the discourse of third-generation New Confucians who fall under this category. The contributions of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism must not be taken as mere discussions of topics related to this tradition. Their interpretations are articulated expressions of the extension and development of Confucianism today. Hence, they should also be included as representatives of and contributors to modern Confucianism or, more specifically, the New Confucian movement since they are helping to expand the third wave and to bring about the revival of the Confucian Way. There has been an intellectual liberalisation of Confucianism owing to the works of famous overseas scholars that are currently undergoing widespread dissemination. Throughout the twentieth century, works of several Sinologists34 became important contributions to the spread of Confucianism outside of China. Currently, many experts (both Chinese and non-Chinese) are taking similar steps towards delivering materials that are of crucial importance for gaining an insightful comprehension of Chinese traditional culture. Moreover, these scholars are in the process of becoming more and more influential in the field of Confucian studies as well as in other areas, such as Chinese philosophy and the intellectual history of China. This is because their discourse is academically visible as part of the third wave, thereby allowing them to lucidly expound a systematic enhancement, understanding, and evolution of Confucianism. Politically speaking, the Chinese government has permitted discussions on Confucianism to take place in an attempt to reassess the cultural roots of the nation. The opening of the International Confucian Association (Guoji Ruxue Lianhehui 國際儒學聯合會) in the 1990s, led to a series of conferences that attracted a number of scholars and intellectuals from China and East and Southeast Asia. The creation of the International Confucian Association reveals the government’s willingness to work with Confucian scholars and other experts in the field. The Chinese Communist Party has perceived the importance of Confucian scholarship, and the positive effects that may arise from preserving, rather than eradicating, one of the most important parts of their cultural heritage. Such constructs have also decreased tensions between Confucianism and the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. Popularising and propagating the Confucian tradition has taken some effort. In 1987, a conference entitled “Changes in Confucian Thought and its Influences” was held in the birthplace of Confucius, , Shandong province, hosting scholars from all over the world. During the opening speech, Gu Mu 谷牧, the Honorary Chair of the China Confucius Foundation and first president of the International Confucian Association, paid particular attention to the dissemination of Confucianism. He stated that Chinese traditional values are essential for China’s continual development and that only the major strengths and rational elements of foreign cultures should be incorporated for the purposes of solving any given problems among society.35 Nevertheless, Chinese traditional values encompass a wide range of theories and practices. Bai Tongdong believes that the Chinese people lost confidence in the universality of their traditional values during the course of the twentieth century. From a philosophical point of view, Bai ponders on the idea that Confucianism is not only for the Chinese people, but also

34 Including important figures such as Wm. Theodore de Bary, Wing-tsit Chan, Herrlee Glessner Creel, Herbert Fingarette, D. C. Lau, David S. Nivison, and Kōjirō Yoshikawa. 35 Lee, 54.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 45 for the whole world; he often presents this idea to his Western audiences in a lecture called “Confucianism to Save the World.”36 Bai understands that Confucianism cannot solve the problems of the entire world, but it is reasonable to agree that other countries are also able to take a mirror-approach to Gu Mu’s proposition and to incorporate only the major strengths and rational elements of Chinese traditional values into their own societies in order to solve any given problems. It is important to provide an account of the spread of Confucianism in and outside Confucian societies and to analyse what contemporary scholars are propagating. Through a holistic approach and understanding of what type of academic discourses are reaching the general public, people will be able to understand the ongoing phenomena occurring in China from a new perspective. In addition, this spread could also have a positive, reciprocal effect for the Chinese citizenry and the government as more and more people begin to appreciate China for its culture, traditional values, principles, and customs rather than placing an emphasis on its negative aspects, such as authoritarian modes of governance, corruption, environmental pitfalls, overpopulation, and so on. The New Confucian movement has taken a new path which has not been truly explored in the manner intended by this study: to wit, focusing its attention mainly on the discourse of Western-educated contemporary overseas scholars. This kind of discourse is important for modern studies of Confucianism as novel ideas, philosophies, and understandings of the tradition are continually arising through contemporary understandings of Confucianism, thereby allowing the third wave of Confucianism to reach another level of maturity. The constant and continual evolution and development of the tradition is aided by the interpretative analyses of these scholars; they have already managed to gain the ears of numerous new audiences and are still continuing to garner attention.

Overseas Confucianism in the Making

The modern development of Confucianism should be primarily credited to scholars and intellectuals who have enriched the tradition by imparting lectures, publishing articles, and producing manuscripts and other literary works. The twentieth century witnessed the emergence of a vast amount of publications relating to Confucianism. A lot of these were limited to a Chinese readership, but many have gradually been translated and have finally become available in other languages. Later works were published in English and other European languages; thus, modern Confucian discourse began to reach non-Mandarin speakers. In a similar vein, the scholarship produced by contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism is helping to publicise the teachings of Confucius, making them widely accessible and available. Many important works on traditional Chinese philosophy or intellectual history of China, either originally written in English or translated to English, are products of first-generation New Confucians. For example, A History of Chinese Philosophy by Feng Youlan (1931; 1934; 1937, English trans. Derk Bodde) and The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought by Zhang

36 Tongdong Bai, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 27, 2015, Beijing, China.

46 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Junmai (1957) reached non-Mandarin speaking audiences as early as the 1930s providing a comprehensive way of understanding the major philosophical traditions and socio-political practices that governed imperial China. 37Another stimulating work, published in 1963, is Wing-tsit Chan’s A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy. Chan was not a New Confucian scholar per se, but his scholarship and engagement with the tradition is of equal importance. Professor Robert C. Neville describes Chan’s volume as “a serious representation of the vast array of philosophic thinking in China’s history,” and asserts this work is “perhaps the single most important for Chinese philosophy in the West.” Neville also notes that in recent years there has been “an ever-increasing flood of good translations and increasingly sophisticated historical studies of Chinese philosophy in English so that non-Chinese reading philosophers can engage Chinese philosophical ideas and movements just as the way they can European ones.”38 Modern efforts to make Confucian scholarship available to the international community took place during the May Fourth Movement of 1919. In 1921, Liang Shuming published Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies in Chinese (Dong xi wenhua ji qi zhexue 東西文化及其哲學); this work marked the early stages of the New Confucian movement. It was one of the first comparative studies produced by a New Confucian for the purposes of identifying the main features that differentiate Eastern and Western cultures. The Confucian intellectual community at the time was worried the tradition might vanish due to the ongoing social and political turmoil. Simultaneously, Western ideas kept flowing into China. As a result, first and second-generation New Confucians focused on teaching, training, and spreading Confucian doctrines in China, and these eventually reached other countries and territories. Before the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949, courses on Chinese philosophy were taught at major Chinese universities, Confucian academies (shuyuan) were instituted, journals were created, and a number of literary works produced. Consequently, New Confucianism began to materialise. Chinese philosophy was revived in attempts to preserve the Confucian heritage, but these attempts came to an end during Mao’s regime causing Confucian intellectuals and sympathisers to flee the country as they were being persecuted. In January 1, 1958, Zhang Junmai, Xu Fuguan, Mou Zongsan, and Tang Junyi—the most noted New Confucian scholars of the time—signed the “Declaration on Behalf of Chinese Culture Respectfully Announced to the People of the World” in Hong Kong. This manifesto became an official platform to demonstrate to the international community that Chinese culture, and Confucianism in particular, is indeed compatible with modernity. These scholars were keen to preserve the tradition and to promote it abroad. The signing of the Declaration inspired Confucian enthusiasts and gave rise to the third generation of New Confucians—all of whom studied under one or more second-generation New Confucians. Except for a few scholars who remained in China after 1949, New Confucian discourse developed and evolved overseas; first in Hong Kong and Taiwan and later in North America and Europe.

37 R. L. Benavides, “This Is a Sample Paper Confucius for Non-Confucians: Understanding China from “Without”,” in Competition and Cooperation in Social and Political Sciences, ed. Isbandi Rukminto Adi and Rochman Achwan (Taylor & Francis Group, 2018), 133. 38 Robert Cummings Neville, Ritual and Deference: Extending Chinese Philosophy in a Comparative Context (State University of New York Press, 2008), 60.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 47

Overseas Confucian discourse is mainly attributed to second and third-generation New Confucians. The relatively new fourth generation of mainland New Confucians should be partly excluded from the overseas discourse because their approach is different and generally concerned with the development of Confucianism in mainland China. Conversely, contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism have developed an approach to Confucianism which strongly resembles that of second and third-generation New Confucians. This is because most of the scholars conduct comparative studies and have lived, studied, or conducted research outside China for long periods of time; many of them have attempted to internationalise Confucian doctrines by indicating how they can fit into the globalised world of today. Thus, contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism are of key importance to modern Confucian discourse and should be regarded as continuers and developers of the New Confucian movement. Perhaps there is no need to assign labels to these scholars, but the achievements, contributions, expertise, and efforts of contemporary overseas scholars to promote the tradition in and outside of China is essential for the enduring appreciation of Confucianism in modern times. Many of their publications are exceptional and indispensable materials for those who wish to understand the richness of the Confucian tradition. Many articles, essays, and other texts cite works or otherwise recognise some of the ideas and philosophies exemplified by the interpretations of overseas scholars of Confucianism, but there is no comprehensive study of how they are shaping our understanding of the tradition today. The way this “meta-generation” of scholars perceive and portray Confucianism will have a profound impact on the cultural, social, political, spiritual, and philosophical undertakings the tradition will have in the future.

Who are the Contemporary Overseas Scholars?

China has become a popular subject of study at numerous institutions of higher education worldwide. This has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of people desiring to become experts in topics concerning China and Chinese culture. In this study, two main criteria were considered to narrow down the selection of possible participants/interviewees. First, the works of the scholar had to be centred on one or more of the following areas: Confucianism, (ancient/modern) Chinese philosophy, Chinese intellectual history, or political philosophy or theory in relation to China. Second, the scholar had to have written or published reputable contributions to modern Confucian studies in a language (or languages) other than Mandarin. The study, however, concentrates on scholars writing in English and French because both languages are dominant in global publishing. Given the potentially large number of individuals that this study could focus on, when conducting an evaluation of the possible candidates to be interviewed for this study, it was determined that it is unfeasible to include every scholar working on modern Confucian projects or in a related field. Thus, the scholars discussed in this thesis constitute a sample. Many scholars were invited to participate in this study, but they were either unavailable or uninterested. Also, other scholars were not invited to partake in the study because of time

48 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM constrictions, logistical issues, institutional approvals, or conflict of interests. 39 Moreover, several scholars who could have also fall under the category of overseas scholars of Confucianism or had a keen interest in Chinese traditional philosophy have passed away.40 Their opinions or contributions would have been extremely valuable to this research project. Hence, the scope of the potential interviewees was reduced to the scholars who were available and agreed to be interviewed. The study focuses on the global spread of Confucianism through the works and translations of a selected group of scholars specifically interviewed for this research project. In addition, the verbal discourses gathered during the interviews are analysed alongside selected publications. All individuals interviewed for this project are renowned academicians whose main scholarly focus is on the abovementioned fields, and every scholar featured here falls under the category of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism. The following is a short description of each scholar interviewed for this project.41 This is intended to provide a general background, institutional affiliations, and other central information about the scholar in question. The interviews were conducted between June 2015 and September 2016 and are presented chronologically to help the reader follow the time and sequence when these took place. Most interviews were face-to-face dialogues with a few exceptions which were conducted via videoconference call and electronic correspondence.

June 18, 2015 – Beijing, China Cheng Chung-ying 成中英 (1935—) is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, where he has been teaching since 1963. He received his bachelor’s degree from the National Taiwan University in 1956 and then migrated to the United States. He holds a master’s degree from Washington University and a doctorate degree from Harvard, both in Philosophy. Cheng is the founder and Honorary President of the International Society for Chinese Philosophy as well as founder and Chief Editor of the Journal of Chinese Philosophy. He has been visiting professor at top-ranking universities, and his writings have become essential to modern Chinese philosophy and Confucian studies. Cheng’s research interests include Chinese logic, Confucian and Neo-Confucian philosophy, and onto-hermeneutics of Eastern and

39 The following is a short list of scholars who are likely to meet the criteria to participate in this research project; however, for the previously mentioned, they were not interviewed: Guy S. Alitto, John H. Berthrong, Joseph Chan, Fred Dallmayr, Fan Ruiping 范瑞平, Huang Yong 黄勇, Lionel M. Jensen, Li Zehou 李澤厚, Richard Madsen, Thomas A. Meztger, Donald J. Munro, Michael Nylan, Peng Guoxiang 彭國翔, Jana S. Rošker, Kwong-loi Shun, Anna Sun, Sor-hoon Tan, Rodney L. Taylor, Hoyt C. Tillman, Justin Tiwald, Bryan W. Van Norden, Xiao Yang 蕭陽, Yang Fenggang 楊鳳崗, Yao Xinzhong 姚新中, and Yu Ying-shih. 40 For example, Julia Ching (1934-2001), David L. Hall (1937-2001), Antonio S. Cua (1932-2007), D.C. Lau (1921-2010), Irene Bloom (1939-2010), David S. Nivison (1923-2014), Liu Shu-hsien (1934-2016), Yu Jiyuan 餘紀元 (1964-2016), Wm. Theodore de Bary (1919-2017), Henry Rosemont, Jr. (1934-2017), and Vincent Shen 沈清松 (1949-2018). 41 A total of seventeen interviews are used in this study. Three interviews conducted in Beijing on June 27, 2015 with professors Huang Yushun 黄玉顺 (Shandong University), Wu Genyou 吳根友 (Wuhan University), and Zeng Zhenyu 曾振宇 (Shandong University) were excluded from the study since their profiles do not fall under the category of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism as defined in this research project. Also, one interviewee requested anonymous treatment of the declarations; thus, the details discussed during this interview will not be disclosed or will be treated anonymously if included. In addition, an interview with Professor Liu Shu-hsien was scheduled to happen in Taipei, Taiwan in late June 2016, but unfortunately, he passed away early that month.

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 49

Western philosophy. He is the author of New Dimensions of Confucian and Neo-Confucian Philosophy (1991) and co-edited Contemporary Chinese Philosophy (2002).

June 27, 2015 – Beijing, China Bai Tongdong 白彤東 (1970—) is the Dongfang Chair Professor in the School of Philosophy at Fudan University, Shanghai. Bai earned his bachelor’s degree in Nuclear Physics and master’s in from Peking University. He received his PhD in Philosophy from Boston University in 2004. Bai is also Global Professor of Law at NYU Law Abroad in Shanghai. During the 2016-2017 academic year, he was a Fulbright Scholar and a Berggruen Fellow at Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. His main research interests are traditional Chinese political philosophy, Confucian political thought, and philosophy of science. His new book, In Defense of Inequality: Confucian Alternatives to Liberal Democratic Orders, is under review for publication and likely to be published in 2019.

July 27, 2015 – Beijing, China Roger T. Ames (1947—) is Humanities Chair Professor at Peking University and Academic Director of the Berggruen Institute’s Philosophy and Culture Center. He received a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Chinese in 1970 and a master’s degree in Asian Studies in 1973 from the University of British Columbia. Between 1970 and 1972, he conducted graduate coursework at the National Taiwan University. Ames earned his doctorate degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom in 1978, and he started teaching at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa shortly after completing his PhD until his retirement in 2016. His main research interests are comparative philosophy and Confucian philosophy. Ames has served as editor for several important journals including the China Review International and Philosophy East and West. He co-translated the Analects (1998) and the Zhongyong (2001) and contributed to the exploration of what is to be a moral human being from a Confucian perspective in his book Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary (2011).

July 28, 2015 – Beijing, China Daniel A. Bell (1964—) is Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University. He obtained a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from McGill University in 1985 and received his master’s and doctorate degrees in Politics from Oxford University in 1988 and 1991. Bell has taught in Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States and has lived and worked in China for several years. He has held research fellowships at Princeton, Stanford, and the Hebrew University. His research is centred on Chinese political meritocracy, Confucian philosophy, hierarchical relations, and comparative political thought. Bell’s most notable works include China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (2008) and The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (2015).

August 14, 2015 – Singapore Li Chenyang 李晨陽 (1956—) is Professor and Head of Philosophy in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He

50 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Peking University in 1982 and 1984 and completed his PhD at the University of Connecticut in 1992. Before moving to Singapore, he was Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Central Washington University. Li has held research fellowships at the City University of Hong Kong and Stanford. He was the first President of the Association of Chinese Philosophers in America from 1995 to 1997. His main research interests include Chinese and comparative philosophy, classical Confucianism, ethics, and harmony. He is the author of The Tao Encounters the West: Explorations in Comparative Philosophy (1999) and The Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (2013).

November 13, 2015 – , France Ji Zhe 汲喆 (1974—) is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Chinese Studies and Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Buddhism at INALCO (National Institute for Oriental Languages and ). He received his bachelor’s degree in Sociology from Fudan Univesity, Shanghai in 1997, and his doctorate degree in Sociology from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, France in 2007. Ji has ongoing research projects with colleagues in France and has several liaisons with Chinese universities. He is also Adjunct Director of the Group ASIEs at INALCO. His main research focuses on sociological aspects of Chinese , especially Buddhism. Some recent publications include topics on Confucian ethics, Confucianism as a religion, and the link between Confucianism and politics in modern China. He is the author of Religion, modernité et temporalité: Une sociologie du bouddhisme chan contemporain (2016) and co-editor of Making Saints in Modern China (2017).

November 17, 2015 – Paris, France Anne Cheng (1955—) holds the Chair of Chinese Intellectual History at the Collège de France in Paris. She was trained in European and Chinese intellectual history at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, at Oxford and Cambridge, and at Fudan University in Shanghai. After an academic career as a Research Fellow at CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research), then as a Professor at INALCO (National Institute for Oriental Languages and Civilizations), she was elected to the Collège de France in 2008. Cheng has authored a great number of articles and chief-edited several volumes on Chinese philosophy and Chinese thought, past and present. Since 2010, she has been directing a bilingual series of works written in classical Chinese and translated into French at Les Belles Lettres in Paris. Her main publications include a complete French translation of the Analects (1981), a Study of Han Confucianism (1985), and a History of Chinese Thought (1997) which has won several awards and has been translated into numerous languages.

December 1, 2015 – Paris, France Sébastien Billioud (1969—) is Professor in the East Asian Studies Department of Université Paris Diderot and Director of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China, Taipei branch. He obtained a PhD in Chinese Studies at Université Paris Diderot in 2004. He has spent altogether thirteen years in Asia (Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei). His cross-disciplinary

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 51 research focuses primarily on the modern and contemporary fates of Confucianism with side projects on religious circulations between the two shores of the Taiwan Strait. Billioud is the author of Thinking Through Confucian Modernity: A Study of Mou Zongsan’s Moral (2012) and co-author of The Sage and the People: The Confucian Revival in China (2015), he edited The Varieties of Confucian Experience (2018), and his monograph Reclaiming the Wilderness: Contemporary Dynamics of the Yiguandao is currently under review for publication.

April 11, 2016 – United States/Singapore (videoconference) Stephen C. Angle (1964—) is Professor of Philosophy and Mansfield Freeman Professor of East Asian Studies at Wesleyan University, where he has been teaching since 1994. He obtained a bachelor’s degree from Yale University in East Asian Studies in 1987 and his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Michigan in 1994. Angle has conducted research activities in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. He has been awarded Fulbright Fellowships in Taiwan and China and was a Berggruen Fellow at Tsinghua University in 2016-2017. His research interests range from Chinese ethics and political thought to comparative and Chinese philosophy, especially contemporary Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism. His main publications include Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy (2009) and Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy: Toward Progressive Confucianism (2012).

April 14, 2016 – Australia/Singapore (videoconference) John Makeham (1955—) is Chair and Director of the China Studies Research Centre of La Trobe University. He studied at the Australian National University and spent most of his academic career there as Professor of Chinese Studies in the College of Asia and the Pacific. Makeham has held academic appointments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other institutions of higher education in Australia. His main research interests include Chinese culture and language, , and intellectual history of China. In recent years, Makeham has paid particular attention to Buddhist influences on Chinese philosophy and Confucian thought. His main works include Lost Soul “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (2008) and a translation of Xiong Shili’s New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness (2015).

April 15, 2016 – United States/Singapore (videoconference) Ni Peimin 倪培民 (1954—) is Professor of Philosophy at the Grand Valley State University and Executive Deputy Dean of the Institute of Advanced Humanistic Studies at Peking University. He obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Philosophy from Fudan University, Shanghai in 1982 and 1985 and earned his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Connecticut in 1991. Ni has spent most of his teaching career in the United States and has been a Visiting Professor in Hong Kong and China. He is one of the founders and former President of the Association of Chinese Philosophers in America from 1997 to 1999. His current research is centred on developing gongfu 功夫 as an approach to Chinese philosophy. Ni’s main publications include Confucius: The Man and the Way of Gongfu (2016) and

52 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Understanding the Analects of Confucius: A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations (2017).

April 25, 2016 – Hong Kong, SAR, China Lauren F. Pfister (1951—) is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University (primarily for PhD supervision). He obtained a bachelor’s degree in American Studies from the University of Denver in 1973 and a master’s degree in Divinity at the Conservative Baptist Seminary, Denver in 1978. He also completed a master’s in Philosophy at San Diego State University in 1982 and received his PhD in Comparative Philosophy (emphasis on China) from the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in 1987. Pfister lived and worked in Hong Kong since 1987 up until his retirement from the Hong Kong Baptist University in September 2017. He was also Associate Editor of the Journal of Chinese Philosophy from 1997 to 2017. His research interests include the writings of James Legge, Chinese philosophical traditions, cross-cultural hermeneutics, and Sino-Christian philosophical and religious dialogues. Pfister has now taken up residence in the Colorado, United States. He is the founder and rector of a spiritually open and Chinese-enriched intellectual retreat centre under the name of Hephzibah Mountain Aster Academy.

April 26, 2016 – Hong Kong, SAR, China Sungmoon Kim (1974—) is Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Public Policy and Director of the Center for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy at City University of Hong Kong. He obtained a bachelor’s degree from Yonsei University in 2000, a master from the Academy of Korean Studies in 2002, and a PhD from the University of Maryland at College Park in 2007. His research areas are comparative political theory, Confucian democracy and constitutionalism, and East Asian political thought. Kim’s books include Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (2014). Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia (2016), and Democracy after Virtue: Toward Pragmatic Confucian Democracy (2018).

April 28, 2016 – Hong Kong, SAR, China Philip J. Ivanhoe (1954—) is Distinguished Chair Professor of Philosophy in the College of Confucian Studies and at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in Philosophy from Stanford University in 1978, and after spending some time serving in the United States military, he received his PhD in Religious Studies with a minor in Asian Languages in 1987 from Stanford as well. Before he moved to Hong Kong in 2006, Ivanhoe held several appointments in top universities in the United States including Stanford, Boston University, and the University of Michigan. He was Chair Professor of East Asian & Comparative Philosophy and Religion and founder and former Director of the Centre for East Asian and Comparative Philosophy and the Laboratory on in Comparative Perspectives at City University of Hong Kong. His main research interests are contemporary ethical, political, and social thought, East Asian and comparative philosophy, history of philosophy, and philosophy of religion.

May 30, 2016 – United States/Singapore (electronic correspondence)

DECIPHERING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 53

Robert C. Neville (1939—) is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Religion, and Theology at Boston University. He is the former Dean of the School of Theology and was Executive Director of the (now called) Graduate Division of Religious Studies also at Boston University. Neville obtained his bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees from Yale University. He has written numerous works on topics concerning metaphysics, religion, and comparative philosophy. In 2000, Neville published Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late- Modern World which argues that the Confucian tradition should not be circumscribed to East Asian cultures.

June 22, 2016 – Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan) Umberto Bresciani (1942—) is Professor of Italian Language at Fujen Catholic University and has been teaching a course on Confucianism every year in the Loyola School of Theology at Ateneo de Manila University since 2015. He also taught Italian Language at National Taiwan Normal University for over forty years. Bresciani received a master’s degree qualification in Theology from the Studentato Teologico Saveriano, Parma, Italy in 1968. He obtained a bachelor’s degree in History and Chinese Studies from the University of Maryland (Taiwan campus) in 1973, and he completed his master’s and PhD degrees in Chinese Literature at the National Taiwan University in 1975 and 1983. Bresciani’s research interests include Confucianism, comparative philosophical and religious thought, and theology. His main works include Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement (2001), Wang Yangming: An Essential Biography (2016), and the Dizionario di Confucianesimo (2018).

September 29, 2016 – Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan) Lee Ming-huei 李明輝 (1953—) is Distinguished Research Fellow in the Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy at Academia Sinica and Professor at National Taiwan University and the National Central University, Taiwan. He was also Chang Jiang Chair Professor at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China. Lee obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Philosophy from the National Chengchi University and the National Taiwan University in 1975 and 1981, and he earned his doctorate degree from Bonn University in in 1986. His research interests are Kantian philosophy, traditional and modern Confucianism, ethics, and political philosophy. Lee’s main works include Rujia shiye xia de zhengzhi sixiang 儒家視野 下的政治思想 (Political Thought from a Confucian Perspective, 2005) and Confucianism: Its Roots and Global Significance (2017).

The previous list consists of several contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism who kindly agreed to participate in this study. With a few exceptions, all participants consented for the interviews to be sound recorded; therefore, these are more likely to appear as direct quotations throughout the study. Also, it needs to be noted that for quality purposes several direct quotations from the interviews that appear throughout the study were slightly tidied to make the interviewee’s verbal meaning clearer. Something to consider is that the scholars interviewed not only come from different academic and cultural backgrounds but also from distinct academic systems. The different systems have their own norms and expectations concerning career promotion, which,

54 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM presumably, channel the scholars’ publication output, teaching, and administrative efforts. Therefore, the selection of scholars was also based on their research output and the importance and recognition of their discourse at a global scale. Nevertheless, all take part in the same discourse given a degree of abstraction.

Concluding Remarks

A basic introduction to the formation of and what it is meant by “overseas Confucianism” has been delivered in this chapter. There were four key aspects covered here as for the reader to have a better perspective of the creative processes involved in producing a novel discourse with Confucian characteristics. The four aspects include: the transmission and adoption of the tradition, how the tradition is being philosophically and academically expanded by specific scholars in the field, the processes of co-creating and advancing the so-called overseas Confucianism, and a brief overview of the scholars interviewed for this project who, in one way or another, fall under the category of overseas scholars of Confucianism. The following chapter will present several tools and methods used throughout the study to examine the discourse and interpretations of the interviewed scholars for this project; but not limited to other scholars or some of their contemporaries. Discourse analysis not only requires paying attention to the linguistic aspects of language materials, it is also important to acknowledge external elements such as cultural, social, and historical contexts or lived experiences that have influenced those communicating their ideas. The purpose of the next chapter is to stress the relevance of discourse deconstruction in the field of Confucian studies today. In addition, it is hoped that the reader will have a clear understanding of the theoretical foundation of the study at hand, and the main purposes behind this research.

CHAPTER 2

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE

Discourse deconstruction serves as a starting point for identifying the principles behind the semantics of language (including literary and spoken discourses) in order to understand what such discourses intend to reveal. Broadly speaking, Confucianism promotes the values of self- cultivation to help solve the social and political problems faced by humanity. It is both a political ideology and a philosophy concerned with empirical, theoretical, and metaphysical inquiries; and its discursive content is made up of literary manuscripts, where a set of ancient canonical texts act as the ethical, political, philosophical, and theological foundation of the tradition. The vast literature found in Confucianism makes it virtually impossible to acquire a fully holistic understanding of it, so a discourse deconstruction of contemporary overseas Confucianism is attempted in the discussion chapters (3-5) using a variety of methods. Conducting a discourse deconstruction of contemporary overseas Confucianism can help reveal whether its doctrinal assumptions are compatible with the contemporary world. This task will be accomplished by way of scrutinising the fundamental features found in the discursive theses representative of this “movement” using a range of methods that can provide a systematic portrayal of the dialectical hermeneutics pervading the discourse; in other words, the logical discussion of ideas and opinions concerned with interpretation. Any dialectic formulations contained within this discourse will be evaluated to help gauge their theoretical and practical weight as well as to determine whether it is possible for a new political philosophy to emerge from it. Deconstruction has no set definition, and this study does not attempt to provide a specific one. The study is intended to deconstruct contemporary overseas Confucianism by conducting a discursive assessment and criticism through a rigorous yet playful dismantling of the dialectics revolving around it. A platform to openly criticise what has been said or written by the scholars under investigation is provided through two degrees of discourse deconstruction. The first deconstructs discourse in its entirety, from a broad perspective. This will be called aggregate discourse. The second deconstructs discourse at a separate, individual, or specific level. This will be called singular discourse. In this study Confucian discourse plays the aggregate role, and each scholar’s discourse plays the singular role. Think of aggregate and singular discourses as a jigsaw puzzle where each individual piece (i.e. the scholar’s discourse) has its own function and yet also belongs to the entire image as a whole (i.e. the Confucian discourse).

55

56 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Aggregate Discourse and Ideological Shifts

Aggregate discourse represents a comprehensive deconstruction of Confucian discourse. This first phase entails numerous ways of deconstructing Confucian discourse. It assumes a position on , meaning that to deconstruct Confucian politico-philosophical discourse as a whole, there must have been initial grounds for it to emerge—in addition to its corresponding aftermaths. In this study, Confucianism is deconstructed on the basis of how it has been transformed into a new kind of lexicon for the sake of its own future as a philosophy, doctrine, or tradition. One question that must be taken into consideration before attempting to deconstruct contemporary overseas Confucian discourse is: Why has this tradition experienced ideological shifts during the course of its existence? Conducting an appraisal of the previous question is a fundamental feature of aggregate discourse as it invites the reader to acquire a better understanding of the nature of Confucian discourse and of its historical development as well. In addition, the purpose and intention of this question is to reveal whether there are any ancient ideological constructs still pertinent today. Contemporary New Confucianism is both independent from yet also interdependent with its predecessors: classical Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, and earlier versions of New Confucianism. Lectures, conferences, publications, gatherings, and presentations discussing the modern relevance of Confucianism clearly represent serious scholarly efforts towards making this third epoch a constructively articulated matter of discussion. Confucianism is a discipline that is being recognised by many as an important and legitimate contribution to the zeitgeist of China and neighbouring territories, and it is increasingly being assimilated to non- Chinese ideas through various attempts to endow it with an international appeal. The premises of contemporary New Confucianism are bound together with earlier forms of the Confucian tradition, and the Confucianism of today is not a phenomenon of purely interdisciplinary academic interest. It has also been argued that Confucianism has successfully procured the status both of a world religion and a world philosophy.1 So, what lies behind the ideological shifts Confucianism has experienced in the course of its history? Such changes are mostly due to historic socio-political events. There are two main ideological shifts here with nearly a thousand years of history in between them: first, the transition from classical Confucianism to Neo-Confucianism, and second, the transition from Neo-Confucianism to New Confucianism. The first ideological shift had its origins during the Tang dynasty (618–907), and it saw significant growth during the Song-Ming period (960-1644). The peculiarity of this ideological shift was that Neo-Confucianism became an educational movement which was guided by the intellect of Confucian enthusiasts. Neo-Confucians believed the daoxue 道學 (learning of the Way) had to be revived. Because of this, concepts such as xingli xue 性理學 (learning of human nature and principle), xin xue 心學 (learning of the heart-and-mind), daotong 道統

1 See Anna Sun, Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary (Princeton University Press, 2013); Robert Cummings Neville, “Confucianism as a World Philosophy. Presidential Address for the 8th International Conference on Chinese Philosophy, Beijing, 1993,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 21, no. 1 (1994).

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 57

(transmission of the Way), and sheng xue 聖學 (learning of the sages) were refurbished, and thus became characteristic of Neo-Confucian philosophy. The second and most recent ideological shift occurred at the end of the Qing dynasty (1644- 1911) and early Republican years. A number of intellectuals strove to save traditional Chinese culture from political decadence by attempting a thorough reformation of Confucianism; a reformation that was capable of being assimilated to the contingencies of the time. At the time of the May Fourth Movement in 1919, Confucian intellectuals gathered to reform and revive Confucian ideals to defend the Chinese philosophical heritage. This was how the New Confucian movement originated. This brief characterisation of the ideological shifts falls under a range of areas (e.g. culture, politics, religiosity, education, comparative philosophy, spirituality, self-cultivation, etc.) that contain core elements of Confucian teachings while retaining the canon and subsequent manuscripts as their foundation; thereby facilitating some continuity and progress of the tradition over time. However, aggregate discourse deconstruction is about more than dated events in history alone, and in this particular context, the ideological shifts originated as responses to the socio-political events of the time they emerged. Initially, with the rise of the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE), Confucianism replaced Legalism as the dominant state ideology. Centuries later, the Neo-Confucian revival of the sage-king (sheng wang 聖王) was an attempt to reposition an exemplary mandate ordered by morally accomplished people. Finally, events such as the Opium Wars (1893-1842 & 1856- 1860) and the Boxer Revolution (1899-1901) led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty resulting in social and political instability at a time when efforts to modernise China were underway. It is thus important to analyse the discursive distinctions of each epoch and to question the ideological shifts in order to get the gist of the historical evolution of the tradition, and more importantly, to gain an understanding of what types of discourses are being generated today and for which purposes. Each shift has produced a distinct brand of discourse characterised by their own peculiarities: classical Confucianism, as a starting point, produced a discourse based on benevolence and rites;2 Neo-Confucianism responded to Buddhist and Daoist doctrines; and New Confucianism challenged Western influences. So, the outset of contemporary overseas Confucianism is perhaps better explicated by looking at the arche or origins behind it, and a way to do that is by using the philosophy of archaeology as a method (explained in detail in the following section).

2 Classical Confucianism is distinguished for epitomising and expanding the ru tradition, known in English as the tradition of scholars or literati. Two of its main features are ren and li. Ren concerns the way human persons accomplish a sense of and is often defined as benevolence, human-heartedness, humaneness, and love. Benevolence is the quality of being kind; human-heartedness of being compassionate; humaneness of having empathy and sympathy; and love is a supreme quality linked to emotional affection, which itself is founded upon sentient relationships. Broadly speaking, all these may be interchangeable. Moreover, li is often portrayed as ritual propriety, ordered principle, or code of ethics. Even though li was initially associated with religious rituals, it is extended to everyday practices as a contribution to the development of interpersonal behaviours in a society or community. Li is indispensable for the production of a harmonious society, insofar as it allows meaningful relationships to be established.

58 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Singular Discourse and the Interview Procedures

The contemporary evolution and continuity of Confucianism very much depends on the discursive modalities produced by Confucian scholars, intellectuals, and experts in the field who are committed to realising the practical nature of Confucianism. Their scholastic pursuits have resulted in a large number of publications which have become the foundation of modern Confucian discourse. Nonetheless, it needs to be emphasised that certain issues may arise when examining, studying, or interpreting the existing literature on Confucianism. All sorts of textual interpretations lead to a hermeneutical problématique at the time of analysing the syntax of literary texts.3 Subjective experiences can have significant influence on the way texts are understood and interpreted by an individual. For example, family educational habits, apprenticeship under certain teachers or mentors, social environments, and cultural values could influence the way one interprets a particular word, sentence, or phrase, even if is sought at the time of reading/interpreting the text. Thus, already acquired cognitive information through subjective experiences and a “supposed” objective reading of texts play a huge role when interpreting or giving meaning to any given text or discourse; this could be regarded as a post-positivist framework or argument. In addition, the content found in texts, when written, had already been subject to the interpretations of others. This takes us to the second phase which deconstructs discourse at the singular level. Deconstructing a singular discourse involves analysing the discursive function of the enunciator (i.e. what is being said and under what circumstances). When targeting a specific scholar’s discourse, it must not be forgotten that the singular discourse itself belongs to an aggregate discourse. A preliminary attempt to deconstruct each scholar’s discourse is conducted in this study by seeking to understand their interest in the Confucian tradition, their main influences, the significance of their research and why they believe is important, in addition to their intended audiences. These were turned into questions and posed to a selected group of scholars to examine and analyse their opinions. Before any of the interviews were conducted, approval and permission from the professors supervising the research project and from the College Research Ethics Committee (CREC) at King’s College London in conjunction with the National University of Singapore (NUS) had to be sought. Ethical clearance is a mandatory requirement at King’s and NUS to provide the highest level of excellence and integrity when involving human participants in any research project. To obtain ethical clearance, three documents (enclosed as appendices) with specific guidelines were requested by the CREC:

• Information Sheet – the information sheet served as the formal invitation for the interviewees to participate in this study. It included the title, purpose, and nature of the study, general information of the research project, and it had a section on confidentiality and information disclosure as well as useful institutional contacts in case any clarifications or complaints were to be made.4

3 The hermeneutical problématique, referred in this study as the “Realproblematik of hermeneutics,” is explained and developed in a later section of this chapter. 4 See Appendix - A.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 59

Form – a consent form was required to be signed by both parties (i.e. interviewer and participant) before the interview took place. This was to assure that the participant had either read or verbally heard and understood the presented data in the information sheet. The consent form reiterated that participation was voluntary and stated that participants could withdraw from the study at any time without giving any reason up to the point of concluding data collection for this specific project (i.e. September 30, 2016). The consent form also included a section for the participant to choose whether he or she wished to be fully or partially identified or to remain anonymous if preferred. It also specified whether the participant agreed or not to be audio/video recorded.5

• Indicative Questions – the set of indicative questions was divided into three sections: background information, practicality and application of Confucian doctrines, and relevant information related to social, political and cultural matters. The questions aimed to assess the participants’ motivations and research interests, distinguish their approach from their contemporaries and previous scholars of Confucianism, and locate significant themes within their discourse. Several follow up questions were asked during the interview thus do not appear directly in this sheet.6

Once ethical approval was granted, the list of suitable interviewees was settled with the professors supervising this research project. All potential candidates were contacted via electronic correspondence which included a formal invitation to participate in the study, and the specific requirements to do so as stated in the Information Sheet. All interviews occurred either in the participants’ offices, at university facilities, or public places (e.g. cafés and restaurants). Moreover, the recorded interviews were personally transcribed by the interviewer. In a few instances, the interviewer sought assistance from third parties (though maintaining the integrity and anonymity of the data and the participant) for the purposes of linguistic clarifications such as inaudible or incomprehensible portions of the audio or to verify and provide a more accurate translation when not in English. While examining the views of the scholars, differences and similarities were found. One of the main commonalities among the scholars is that their research has a discursive function. That means that each individual’s opinions, methods, or expressions implicitly shape into a discourse that produces exemplifications of their own views, perspectives, experiences, histories, and circumstances—either at a specific point in time or in a general, broader, or more comprehensive manner. Understanding the mechanisms that shape discourse in any given context (spoken or written) has been a matter of discussion among scholars, philosophers, and intellectuals. Giving meaning to discourse and its respective interpretations, utterances, or composition of specific linguistic usage to convey an idea involves a multi-layered systematic analysis of semiotics, semantics, linguistics, and pragmatics. Discourse theories conceptualise discourse as a social

5 See Appendix - B. 6 See Appendix - C.

60 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM phenomenon explaining its origins and structures, and discourse acts as an instrument to link what is being portrayed to reality.7 But if discourse is taken as an instrument for portraying reality, there must be theoretical implications regarding whether the content of a discourse can truly reflect or determine the character of its practical relevance—from a contextual point of view—in a realistic manner. Contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, for instance, has offered admirable philosophical inputs, but more importantly, its discursive context is increasingly engaging in processes that concern society, politics, and modern modes of governance. One intrinsic feature found in Confucianism is the amalgamation of politics and ethics, and any attempts to implement ethico-political Confucian dogmas today can be taken as a creative and philosophical moment in the modern world. If discourse is then deconstructed as a means to understand the relationship between what is being said and how relevant it is to contemporary state of affairs, then some features of Confucian political discourse may lead to the formation of new theoretical constructs in political philosophy. A discourse produced by an enunciator is intended to express personal ideas using either textual or verbal means. The utterer often presents a constitution of what he or she is entitling himself or herself to put into context or discussion; however, if one wishes to identify forms of language construction, which themselves presuppose the ideas and opinions of the enunciator, the discourse must undergo an analysis. Discourse analysis involves the study of what has been said and what has been written. It helps us understand, using a variety of approaches, the usage of language as it is and within certain given social contexts.8 If this definition of discourse analysis is contextually applied to Confucianism, the assumption that Confucius himself conducted a sort of discourse analysis— whilst examining, compiling, and editing the ancient texts—can finally be made. Confucius aimed to restore and revive wisdom and serenity during the Spring and Autumn period by transmitting the teachings of the founders of the Zhou dynasty (c. 1100–250 BCE).9 It has been recorded in the Analects that he only transmitted original teachings but did not craft them; instead, he placed his trust in antiquity (i.e. the classics) to attain wisdom and knowledge.10 The Book of Odes, the , and the conservation of the rules of propriety (li), for example, were among his frequented themes of discourse.11 So, when Confucius expressed his ideas, his language usage reflected how his thought and enunciations were based on his own interpretations of the ancient texts. One example of language usage in a social context is the debate on human nature uttered by Confucius’ successors. Mencius believed human nature is innately good, Xunzi opposed this argument, and Dong Zhongshu thought it was a mix of both. The disparities of opinions from these Confucian philosophers address the moral concerns of their society, and the usage of language in this context expresses their intuitive beliefs on human nature. These are based on

7 Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Second ed. (Sage, 2009), 24. 8 Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates, Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis (Sage, 2001), i. 9 John H. Berthrong and Jeffrey L. Richey, “Introduction: Teaching Confucianism as a Religious Tradition,” in Teaching Confucianism, ed. Jeffrey L. Richey (Oxford University Press, 2008), 4-5. 10 Analects 7.1 11 See Analects 7.18 and James Legge, The Chinese Classics: Confucian Analects, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean, vol. 1 (Trübner & Co., 1861), 99.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 61 either personal experience or textual interpretations, or a combination of both; thereby representing the ultimate foundation that is capable of endowing meaning upon their discourse. Although contemporary Confucian discourse straddles two central discursive modes, namely mainland Confucianism and overseas Confucianism, this study will focus on deconstructing overseas Confucianism. The latter is the kind of discourse perceptible to the non-Chinese reader and to audiences outside Mandarin-speaking communities. Discourses in these two contexts have substantial differences. Scholars may have similar or opposing views regarding whether Confucianism should be re-institutionalised in China, modernised exclusively in a Chinese context or in accordance with Western parameters, or whether it should be expressed in a more liberal or conventional manner. The range of views challenges the practical elements espoused by contemporary Confucian discourse; thus, an in-depth examination of the theories and cognitive processes behind the hermeneutical interpretations of the scholars is indispensable for understanding the relevance and applicability of Confucianism today. Contemporary overseas Confucian discourse eliminates geographical boundaries and combines Confucian and non-Confucian elements to make them adaptable at a global scale. This study seeks an analysis that will successfully reveal the language, truth, and meaning of discourse. Consequently, concepts including archaeology, genealogy, rhetoric, pragmatics, and parrhesia are used consistently as techniques for producing a systematic and creative representation of deconstruction and discourse analysis. The following sections expand on each of these concepts; they provide a basic literary definition and explain how they are methodologically used throughout the study. It is hoped these concepts will allow us to engage in a distinctive kind of discourse deconstruction applied to contemporary overseas Confucianism.

Archaeology and Genealogy as Methods

Discourse can be deconstructed in many ways; there is no single way of deconstructing discourse, but one good way to begin a discourse deconstruction is by investigating its origins. The origins of a discourse must be laid bare and opened up for a better, and perhaps more comprehensive, understanding of its development, its transformations, its evolution, and its significance. The concepts archaeology and genealogy are two techniques that can be used as deconstructive apparatuses to deeply immerse in a discourse and determine its formulations and contingencies. Both archaeology and genealogy—in the Foucauldian-Nietzschean sense instead of their conventional or normative meanings—question the procedural complexities of discourse formation, and the philosophical and social implications it can generate. Published in 1969, ’s L’archéologie du savoir (The Archaeology of Knowledge) elucidates the immanent power of discourse in relation to the history of ideas. Literature, history, politics, philosophy, and knowledge are examples of discursive articulations that are subject to analysis because they concern the synthetic development and anthropological evolution of the discourse. However, Foucault uses the archaeological method

62 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM to distance discourse from any synthetic or anthropological predispositions. He formalises history as an animated and ongoing phenomenon that should not be naturally attached or limited to anthropologisms, nor hindered through a relegation of thoughts, ideas, or as determined systems or structures that are embedded in the human consciousness.12 In this sense, archaeology becomes a crucial method for deconstructing aggregate and singular discourses on a specific area of study or from a specific period in time. Genealogy as a method, on the other hand, was first used by in Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift (On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic) to explain what morality means within the human experience. What Nietzsche does is not merely a search for the origins of morality. Instead, he aims to reveal the profane influence of power over moral concepts and ideas found in social and cultural constructs. His work, published in 1887, is a detailed explanation that proffers morality with a specific meaning through power consolidations at a given point in time. This design, according to Nietzsche, is dictated by consequential events in history, and meaning-making is a matter of authority-constructs. In other words, individuals in power are benefited because their “higher nature” makes their discourse capable of being accepted as true.13 Genealogically speaking, the meaning must not purely rely on the present understanding of any given term because the latter is subject to change according to the value judgements of those in power. Influenced by Nietzsche, Foucault also has his own way of approaching genealogy. He expanded the genealogical thesis beyond the theme of morality alone by unveiling the inseparability of (institutions of) power with the historical (and continuous) production of truth and knowledge. Archaeology and genealogy share, in many ways, features concerning truth, power, subjectivity, and objectivity. These concepts were generally envisaged as taken-for-granted until Nietzsche’s and Foucault’s approaches surfaced. In short, archaeology focuses on the assemblage and significance of statements—that form discourses—at the time of their production taking into account multiple elements that could possibly have influenced their composition; whereas genealogy rejects what has been archaically accepted as “true” and concentrates on the overall relationship between the fabrication of discourse and power. Archaeology and genealogy are used in this study as techniques to help understand what type of discourses are being developed by contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism. Arguably, some of these discourses function as authority-constructs of how the ideas of Confucius and his followers, parts of the Confucian traditions, or Confucianism in its entirety ought to be perceived at present. These discourses clearly support the continuity of the tradition yet also endow the enunciators with authority over how this tradition should be understood in

12 Michel Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (Routledge Classics, 2002), 14- 16. 13 Nietzsche makes an antithesis of “good” and “bad” and replaces them as “master morality” and as “slave morality” respectively. In “master morality,” the noble or aristocrats are “good” while the weak or plebeians are “bad”. Their hierarchical social status characterises the meaning of what is to be “good” or “bad”. Conversely, a “slave morality” is born out of resentment from the unprivileged who think of high-ranking people as being “evil” for oppressing them. Thus, the lower class is inevitably considered (or becomes) “good”. For Nietzsche’s explanation, see Friedrich Nietzsche, “First Essay: ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad’,” in On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, Cambridge Texts in the History of Poliitcal Thought (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 10-34.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 63 contemporary times. This is, nevertheless, a topic which has preoccupied some scholars— principally mainland fourth-generation New Confucians—who do not necessarily agree with contemporary overseas and New Confucian ideas. Overseas Confucian discourse is a one-of-a-kind type of discourse aimed at alleviating economic, social, cultural, ethical, spiritual, philosophical, and political eventualities of the epoch. Third-generation New Confucians have heavily influenced much of the current dialogues that make up the composition of modern Confucianism, and how it should be assimilated. But, how is this discourse beneficial, and why is important to deconstruct it? The systematic understanding of Confucianism exemplified by these scholars has been generated by previous literary or verbal encounters with the tradition. Discourse cannot emerge ex nihilo; it is always stimulated by the connections established with texts or conversations that have shaped the interpretations of the interlocutors. The teachings and philosophies of Confucius, for instance, originated because of his own textual criticisms and dialogues with his disciples. The discursive elements in any given context must be carefully examined to answer: “what was being said in what was said?”14 One characteristic of the archaeological method is that anyone producing a discourse on a specific domain transforms and supplements what has already been said or written earlier in time. The relevance of contemporary Confucian discourse lies in the classification of words, sentences, phrases, or themes. It is only through the development of these that one can see how the evolution of the tradition depends on what others say about it. Take for instance the idea of filial piety (xiao 孝), a central concept of Confucianism. In 2008, Bai Tongdong responded to Liu Qingping’s 劉清平 interpretations of two controversial hypothetical cases found in Mencius, 7A:35 and 5A:3.15 Liu, a moral and political philosopher based at the Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences in Fudan University, has critically examined these two passages observing links between filial piety, individualism, and communalism. Initially, Bai’s main concern was that Liu blames these two passages for inspiring a tradition that inculcates, what Liu calls, “consanguinitism.”16 Liu insists Confucius and Mencius instil filial favouritism, which results in nepotism and, in turn, extends to unethical and immoral individual, social, and political practices. As a result, Liu believes it is because of these kinds of teachings that modern Chinese society has the following unhealthy tendencies:

La guan xi 拉關係 (establishing special relations with someone special), zou hou men 走 後門 (getting in by the back door), qun dai wang 裙帶網 (the network connected via

14 Foucault, 30. 15 Liu Qingping had previously discussed these two passages in Liu Qingping 劉清平, “Meide haishi fubai?: Xi “Mengzi” zhong youguan Shun de liang ge anli” 美德還是腐敗?:析“孟子”中有關舜的兩個案例 [Virtue or Corruption? An Analysis of Two Cases of Emperor Shun in the Mencius], Zhexue Yanjiu 哲學研究 [Philosophical Studies], no. 2 (2002): 43-47. He discussed these passages again in addition to two more found in the Analects (i.e. 17.21 and 13.18) in Qingping Liu, “Filiality Versus Sociality and Individuality: On Confucianism as “Consanguinitism”,” Philosophy East and West 53, no. 2 (2003). 16 Liu, “Filiality Versus Sociality and Individuality: On Confucianism as “Consanguinitism”,” 234.

64 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

one’s maternal relatives), jie bang pai 結幫派 (forming cliques), taking or giving a bribe from or to somebody who stands in a special relation to oneself, and so on.17

Liu believes these are some of the reasons why China struggles to progress and modernise.18 In response to that, Bai perceives these accusations are similar in nature to those present during the May 4th era. He rather takes a neutral approach on the two cases found in the Mencius (and those similar in nature found in the Analects) convinced that they “serve only as context- dependent examples that offer hints and inspirations for us to handle our own problems.”19 Liu’s allegations raised eyebrows among Confucian experts to the extent that other scholars engaged in the conversation to defend—or at least propose an alternative view to—the Confucian tradition. Ni Peimin, for example, suggested that Liu Qingping should not take Confucians as Kantians. Ni means that there is no one universal way of dealing with such ethical concerns, so he proposes to think of Confucianism as a system of principles involved in instructing people on how to be or act as humans through relationships, self-cultivation, and empathy. Ni stresses that Liu’s reading of the Analects 1.11 is not accurate since Liu concludes that “Confucius clearly puts the particular affection of filial piety above the universal Way (Dao 道 ) of humaneness and righteousness.” 20 This, according to Ni, is an obvious misinterpretation of Confucius. Ni explains that the passage found in the Analects 1.11 simply suggests that if a son follows the wills and ways of the father for three years (the prescribed mourning period of the time) after his death, this is worthy of being regarded as filial conduct.21 Finally, Ni agrees that Liu raises good questions to the cases in the Mencius and the Analects and studies the possibility of taking a different approach to these hypothetical situations. His only recommendation to Liu’s critiques is that he should not (or anyone else in that respect) “simply assume the legitimacy of one’s own perspective.”22 Other scholars including Fred Dallmayr, Fan Ruiping, Guo Qiyong, Sungmoon Kim, Ma Lin, Henry Rosemont, Jr., and Roger Ames, to name a few, have also discussed Liu’s approach to the passages in the Mencius and the Analects.23 For a number of reasons, these and many other scholars have engaged in a variety of discursive practices in an attempt to reflect more

17 Qingping Liu, “Confucianism and Corruption: An Analysis of Shun’s Two Actions Described by Mencius,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2007): 7. 18 Liu, “Filiality Versus Sociality and Individuality: On Confucianism as “Consanguinitism”,” 246. 19 Tongdong Bai, “Back to Confucius: A Comment on the Debate on the Confucian Idea of Consanguineous Affection,” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 29. 20 Liu, “Confucianism and Corruption: An Analysis of Shun’s Two Actions Described by Mencius,” 4. 21 Peimin Ni, “Do Not Take Confucians as Kantians: Comments on Liu Qingping’s Interpretation of Confucian Teachings,” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 46. 22 Ibid., 49. 23 See Fred Dallmayr, Integral Pluralism: Beyond Culture Wars (University Press of Kentucky, 2010), 185- 90; Ruiping Fan, “Consanguinism, Corruption, and Humane Love: Remembering Why Confucian Morality Is Not Modern Western Morality,” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008); Guo Qiyong 郭齊勇, “Ye tan “zi wei fu yin” yu Mengzi lun Shun—jian yu Liu Qingping xiansheng shangque” 也談“子為父隱”與孟子論舜—兼與劉清平先生商榷 [On the “Son Concealment of the Father” the Case of Shun in the Mencius—A Discussion with Mr. Liu Qingping], Zhexue Yanjiu 哲學研究 [Philosophical Studies], no. 10 (2002): 27-30; Qiyong Guo, “Is Confucian Ethics a “Consanguinism”?,” Dao 6, no. 1 (2007); Sungmoon Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 64-65; Lin Ma, “Beyond the Urge of Defense,” Dao 7, no. 2 (2008); Henry Rosemont, Jr. and Roger T. Ames, “Family Reverence (xiao) as the Source of Consummatory Conduct (ren),” in Confucian Role Ethics: A Moral Vision for the 21st Century? (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 59-65.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 65 precisely what methods of analysis each one employs when discussing such controversial hypothetical questions; questions which, to some extent, are of fundamental importance for understanding the root(s) of Confucianism in order to find ways of making it relevant today. The previous is one of many examples of enunciative practices. It serves as a helpful outline of the current discursive context of Confucianism which make it possible to discuss what is being said or written about the sayings or writings of Confucius, Mencius, and others that followed; as well as whether these sorts of discourses are applicable today. Because of a simple word, statement, phrase, or—in this case—a hypothetical occurrence, numerous arguments can be written, or a number of lectures can be imparted in an attempt to provide a solution to a problematic notion by delivering opinions that criticise a specific occurrence of the past. “For Confucianism to be re-appropriated,” writes Ni Peimin, “it has to go through a transformative process in which it will inevitably drop some ideas that are outdated, inappropriate, or simply wrong.”24 The most difficult task is, however, to devise theoretical mechanisms followed by pragmatic ones that can be adapted to our current circumstances when, for example, discussing “right” as opposed to “wrong” or “ethical” as opposed to “unethical.” For this reason, using archaeology to understand our own conditions at a particular moment in time is a great way and starting point to deconstruct discourse. The contemporary significance and practicality of certain elements pertaining to Confucianism can be discussed, but this does not imply each and every one can be ascribed to current-world matters. Any system of statements found in historical texts, or what Foucault labels as archive, must undergo a transformation if they are intended—through, say, scholarly research—to become practical. 25 The same applies inversely. For example, any outdated Confucian components still practiced today should undergo an evaluation and a transformation if it is intended to endure in an environment that has become inconvenient or foreign for it to be positively functional. Many elements are no longer applicable due to the didactic, social, political, economic, or cultural transformations our civilisations have experienced. In that respect, the discourses of representatives of or specialists in this field are subject to scrutiny as we shall see throughout the discussion chapters. Moreover, in the normative sense of genealogy, New Confucianism is often regarded as the continuation of Neo-Confucianism. It must be taken into account, however, that contemporary overseas Confucianism should not simply be regarded as a historical continuity or mere evolution of other types of Confucianism.26 It is a unique and distinct discourse which has developed as a result of events and other undertakings that led to shifts in the tradition throughout the twentieth century: the millennial shift to the twenty-first century; the need to investigate its pragmatic representation today; and the intellectual obligation a number of scholars have felt to discuss, promote, or reinvigorate the tradition in China and abroad. Broadly speaking, the normative genealogy of contemporary overseas Confucianism does date back to the ru tradition. However, as an innovative recent movement—if classified as such—it recognises the different incidents and occurrences Confucianism has experienced for centuries. It emerges about a century ago as a unique measure involuntarily devised by a

24 Ni, 45. 25 For a more detailed description and explanation of archive in the Foucauldian sense, see Foucault, 142-48. 26 That is, classical Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, early/late New Confucianism, or contemporary mainland New Confucianism.

66 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM selected group of scholars and Confucian intellectuals. So, to deconstruct contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, Nietzschean-Foucauldian genealogy (and archaeology) becomes a matching method for the possibility to:

• Question its emergence • Analyse its philosophic apportions based on the generated discourses at the aggregate and singular levels • Dichotomise and acknowledge differences of opinions • Concrete phenomenological instances, as causation, to extend the analysis of its discourse • Re-evaluate the relationship between specific discursive formations (concepts, statements, functions, archives) pertaining to the texts or talks through marginal surveillance • Investigate cultural phenomena

This method can also be used to examine the origins of ethics and morality as perceived in the Confucian tradition as well as how these are represented by contemporary scholars. Confucian concepts such as dao 道 (the Way), de 德 (virtue), junzi 君子 (exemplary person), li 禮 (ritual propriety), ren 仁 (benevolence), wen 文 (cultured/cultivated), xi 习 (habitual conduct), xin 信 (trustworthiness), xing 省 (introspection), yi 義 (righteousness), and zhi 智 (wisdom) can be linked to the philosophical understanding of morality of the West. They are values for self- cultivation, and they are inseparable from morality, but “morality” and “to be moral” do not necessarily have universal meanings and are difficult to measure. An act of morality depends on multiple factors: cultural environment, time or epoch, the situation at hand, etc. Let us suppose there is a beggar on the street. One could either walk by and acknowledge the situation but do nothing about it or one could comfort the beggar by providing monetary support or basic needs (food, clothing, and shelter). Ignoring the situation could be seen as morally wrong to a degree, especially if one would not be significantly affected by providing the beggar with one or more basic needs or by sparing a few coins. So, how “immoral” will it be not to offer any of these? One could hand the beggar a coin, but how much is “morally” enough? Or, is the intention of aiding more important than the amount given? Will a Confucian say, “Oh! This is tiandao 天道 (the Way of Heaven); I shall take no part in this”? What happens when a situation does not affect or harms the person directly, but he or she is consciously aware that it does to others? Should the situation be ignored? What is the best way to extend one’s overall sense of morality or righteousness? In The Moral Circle and the Self: Chinese and Western Approaches (2003), Chong Kim- chong, Sor-hoon Tan, and C. L. Ten discuss questions of this nature. The editors suggest this collection of essays brings a “fresh perspective” and “deep understanding” of Chinese and Western ethics aiming to show whether morality (or ethics) can go beyond the self and the family, in an attempt to reach out to a “wider circle” of concerns.27 The question here is, how

27 Kim-chong Chong, Sor-hoon Tan, and C. L. Ten, eds., The Moral Circle and the Self: Chinese and Western Approaches (Open Court Publishing, 2003), ix.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 67 is it possible to measure or evaluate a “fresh perspective” or “deep understanding” of any tradition (or anything else per se)? Hence, when conducting a discourse analysis by deconstructing aggregate or singular discourses, it is worth taking into account any present and pre-existing phenomenological instances experienced by the authors at the time they engaged in the process of writing their manuscripts. This is because, in this particular case, such instances absolutely condition the authors’ “perspectives” and “understandings” of the Confucian tradition, the Western tradition, Chinese and Western approaches to morality, morality as such, or anything else in that respect. Consequently, it is possible to use Nietzsche’s genealogy as a methodology for examining the origins, evolutions, and meanings of a particular concept or instance as well as what it means for us today. Although it is not an easy task to evaluate the discursive power of scholars inside the political realm, using Foucault’s genealogical approach can help us further understand which discursive practices do carry weight in social and political matters. It is necessary to look beyond the reasons why a scholar examines a specific topic or text as well as the reasons behind his or her work. What made a scholar interested in a specific subject within his or her area of investigation in the first place? How is an idea ignited, initiated, or brought into being? And, what methods might he or she be using? All are questions that may assist us in understanding the fundamental formations of a scholarly discourse—especially when combining Nietzschean and Foucauldian genealogical approaches.28 By using the archaeological method of analysing discourse, a text or a set of texts can be put together to construct an “archive.” The purpose of examining archives in this context is to measure the effects and influence of such writings in relation to institutions (e.g. medical, social, political, educational, economic, cultural, and financial) that normally impose power and authority over people.29 Genealogy, correspondingly, is concerned with truth and subjectivity. It examines the specificity of terms at a time and place rather than in a general narrative as it is aimed towards understanding the present.

Rhetoric and Pragmatics

Rhetoric and pragmatics can be easily combined as a means of examining language. On the one hand, rhetoric may be used as a tool for analysing persuasive enunciations in a discourse; these, however, may or may not be intentional. Rhetoric is more than the of persuasion through language usage. The discourse elaborator must have substantial knowledge of a subject

28 It should be emphasised that the type of genealogy that it is being used in this study to deconstruct discourse is not intended to examine the birth of the idea (or of what factors prompted the idea) which underlies the “new” idea(s) under investigation. It is more of a matter of the genesis, rise, advent, or origin of the new idea or the new given-meaning or approach to a previous or specific concept. This way of conducting genealogy means taking a concept, statement, or happening at the time it occurred considering the particular purposes it served, then investigate its after-effects. This approach is taken because the environment, surroundings, experiences, happenings, history, mood, and physical and mental states, among numerous other factors, influence the genesis of a concept, statement, or event. 29 If we take institutions of higher education as an example, the courses, subjects, or programmes offered in diverse fields such as politics, agriculture, or physics would cease to exist without the works of scholars working on these subjects. Thus, the works and publications of contemporary scholars of Confucianism are crucial means of supporting the knowledge-elevation of Chinese philosophy.

68 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM in order to present articulated arguments, through logical reasoning, which are capable of being clearly understood by an audience. To understand and analyse the use of rhetoric in a discourse, rhetorical criticism serves as an essential methodological tool. On the other hand, any understanding of the internal structures or logic of discourse depends upon pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of linguistic articulations as well as the context in which these are used. Language, both textual and verbal, allows the enunciators to form locutions or discourses with the intention of expressing thoughts, ideas, feeling, or emotions aimed at conveying a message to an audience.30 When analysing discourse, it is important to examine whether the conveyed message or enunciation has some implicit meanings. This is important because no discourse should be accepted or taken as veracious or reliable datum (endoxa) without prior verification or analysis. While pragmatics deals with and interpretation of messages by those exposed to the utterance(s), rhetoric aims to influence audiences. The latter, however, does not always go together with truth. The problem with rhetoric is that the enunciator is able to use it as a means of furnishing detailed and convincing explanations of a set of ideas or principles in order to persuade an audience. Via knowledge acquisition, the enunciator acquires expertise on a particular topic, thereby making his or her discourse authoritative. For this reason, the means and effects of rhetorical discourse can be analysed by using pragmatics. If the intention is solely to deconstruct the enunciator’s usage of language, the effects of rhetoric are peripheral compared to the means. If, however, the effects are to be measured, a dialectical analysis of the usage of language is required in order to note whether the enunciation(s) includes any truthful facts. As a result, using rhetoric as a tool for deconstructing discourses allows us to analyse the natural order of language construction (i.e. pragmatics) that has been used to persuade the audience. In contemporary Confucian studies, many works discuss the current revival and relevance of the tradition. Philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, historians and others use rhetorical expressions in order to highlight certain mechanisms that make Confucianism relevant in today’s society. They use rhetoric as a way of grounding the logic of their arguments based on their knowledge and interpretations of the doctrines in question; these frequently deal with ethical, political, and philosophical concerns—three matters traditionally encompassed by rhetoric. The rhetorical abilities of these scholars have taken Confucianism to another level. The Confucian heritage is no longer vehemently opposed by the Chinese people or the government as it was for most of the twentieth century. In fact, the contemporary revival of Confucianism has taken a dynamic turn provoking intellectual debates in Chinese academia and other academic circles outside of China. For instance, several scholars have agreed to participate in this study; they were keen to provide their opinions on and interpretations of Confucianism. This suggests that they have something to say for or against the tradition (and other aspects concerning current and global affairs), and it is important to note that, epistemologically speaking, the consolidation of their discourse cannot be separated from rhetoric. Their

30 Additionally, there are non-textual and non-verbal forms of language such as painting, dance, and music; body language, sign language, appearance, and gestures; or signs and symbols that either help transmit a message more effectively or complement textual or verbal communications.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 69 declarations and contributions do supplement previous discourses on Confucianism. However, the primary route for legitimising their discourse is their academic contributions—unlike in earlier forms of Confucianism as these were directly incorporated into the social and political domains. There are many things that are worth analysing in a discourse; especially the dichotomy between the utterer’s meaning and the meaning of the utterance. Analysing rhetoric in discourse requires a number of perceptive methods that enable one to define, organise, and effectively interpret the ideas portrayed by the enunciator. Not all enunciators use their discourse as rhetorical expressions that are capable of endowing meaning on what they announce or disclose. Instead, many use natural rhetoric, which is demarcated in this study as conveying ideas (alleged to be truth) into spoken or written forms; these ideas unintentionally produce persuasive practical discourses. Natural rhetoric may not be easily identified— especially if the non-expert reader accepts the rhetorician’s discourse as genuine due to his or her lack of expertise on the subject—unless a literary (or vernacular) criticism of the enunciation at hand is performed. Hence, using pragmatics to deconstruct, analyse, and identify the rhetorical nature of (especially political and philosophical) arguments proves to be a prevalent method because it helps scholars to uncover and disclose the meanings and intentions of the language that is being used by the enunciators. Moreover, using pragmatics as a method of investigating the meaning of utterances in a particular context, and whether these have rhetorical elements, leads to a syntagmatic illocutionary force; this is a mirror-like effect which occurs whenever discourse is being deconstructed. An illocution proposes and delivers, within the content of the utterance, the effects of an intended action. Initially, the illocutionary act (e.g. asserting, informing, inquiring, promising, stating, warning, etc.) of the discourse or utterance goes through a systematic process of analytical examination in order for it to be deconstructed. At the same time, while the deconstruction is taking place, a subsequent illocutionary act occurs, which is itself guided by the deconstructionist. Strictly speaking, examining the intention of the discourse generates an additional discourse proposed by the deconstructionist, which also has its own intention. If one comes to recognise the intention of a particular discourse, this implies that there exists, beyond the context being examined, a supplementary deliberative intention produced by the deconstructionist making it a paradigmatic element of discourse deconstruction. Many scholars of Confucianism are convinced of the practicality of the tradition and attempt to convince their audiences of its contemporary relevance through their own individual discourses. Other scholars simply present their interpretations and arguments allowing the audience to perform their own interpretations. In this sense, rhetoric as the art or technique of persuasion could be used by the scholar to convey an idea, but because rhetoric does not always concern the truth of opinions, this study will look into parrhesia. This brings us to the next section where the combination of the archaeology, genealogy, rhetorical criticism, and pragmatics could enable us to locate whether parrhesia is practised in Confucian hermeneutics, more specifically in the discourses and interpretations that are representative of contemporary overseas Confucianism.

70 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Parrhesia in Action

Parrhesia has never been fully discussed in or associated with Confucian discourse. It is therefore necessary to investigate whether Confucian discourse can take a parrhesiastic role in any of the topics addressed by scholars who are contributing their ideas and analyses to modern Confucianism. The way texts or terminologies are interpreted varies widely and depend on the lived experiences and cognitive processes of the scholars, which have been partly influenced by several phenomenological happenings (e.g. time and place of birth, native language, interpersonal encounters, socio-economic status, political events, etc.). The causal ground of parrhesia, as developed in Confucian discourse, encompasses every theme discussed by the discourse elaborators. Those whose hearts and minds are grounded in the Confucian tradition cannot escape the practice of parrhesia. In other words, parrhesia is innately grounded in the discourse of those who truly believe Confucianism can provide solutions to humanity’s problems. These scholars often portray their ideas through literary texts or lectures, so in the narrower sense of the word parrhesia, those who are speaking their own mind through plain-speaking (speaking frankly) are assuming the role of a parrhesiastes (i.e. one who uses parrhesia). Parrhesia, in the broader cultural context of its origins, is political in nature. The idea of parrhesia as frankness of speech famously emerged in the political discourses of ancient Greece. It gave the citizens of Athens the right to speak and express their thoughts candidly on a democratic basis. This was considered a virtue, and it was widely used in ethico-political discourses and contexts. However, other derivatives of parrhesia also exist. For example, Philodemus of Gadara (ca. 110-ca. 30 BCE) used it slightly differently in his treatise Peri Parrhesias (On Frank Criticism). His framework was mainly concerned with teacher-student relationships with regard to the nature of moral instruction as conducted through parrhesia. Philodemus distanced parrhesia from its original connotation—that of being a political instrument for speaking openly and frankly. Instead, he used it at a more personal level, as a private virtue of frank speech. Peri Parrhesias concentrates on admonishing error and ignorance through the finest qualities of frank speech in order to achieve some constructive purposes. Self-improvement, building of character, and moral development are the final goals sought by such critiques. A parrhesiastes is a truth-teller, one who verbalises his or her opinions without fear; a virtuous individual who ought not to be selfish or act in a self-interested manner; one whose beliefs are clearly stated to his or her audience; someone who is habitually committed to expressing themselves truthfully and, arguably, always practices . An example of a parrhesiastes is the famous Greek philosopher Socrates. Before he was sentenced to death, Socrates was asked to stop inquiring, investigating, and philosophising if he wanted to stay alive, but he refused to do it:

I, men of Athens, salute you and love you, but I will obey the god rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able to, I will certainly not stop philosophizing, and I will

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 71

exhort you and explain this to whomever of you I happen to meet, and I will speak just the sorts of things I am accustomed to.31

Socrates was accustomed to speaking his mind; to speak whatever he believed to be the truth. He was not fearful of speaking verities, even if that would have him killed. But, how can philosophical “truth” be measured, and who is able to judge or recognise whether anything said or written is actually true within certain connotations? Thus, discourse analysis plays an important role in defining language and the meaning of words and phrases. To analyse the constructs and influence of discourse, one can look into Michel Foucault’s examination of parrhesia. Foucault explored parrhesia in many of his works and lectured widely on it in the late years of his career. He explains:

Etymologically, parrhesia is the act of telling all (frankness, open-heartedness, plain speaking, speaking openly, speaking freely). The Latins generally translate parrhesia as libertas [freedom]. It is the openness which makes us speak, which makes us say what has to be said, what we want to say, what we think ought to be said because it is necessary, useful, and true.32

Foucault analysed where, how, and for which purposes parrhesia was used. Parrhesia also takes into consideration the connection between the enunciator and the chosen words as well as the relationship between the speaker and his or her audience. In a lecture at the Collège de France in January 1982, Foucault refers to two essential qualities—elucidated in Epictetus’ Discourses—expected from philosophers in ancient Greece, namely protreptikos and elegktikos:

Protreptikos…is someone who has the ability to give a protreptic education, that is to say, an education that can turn the mind in a good direction. Elegtikos [sic], on the other hand, is someone good in the art of discussion, in the intellectual debate that allows truth to be freed from error, error to be refuted and a true position put in its place.33

Protreptikos and elegktikos can easily be ascribed to parrhesia and rhetoric respectively. A protreptikos, as per the above definition, is able to persuade or instruct someone through writings or dialogues to do the right thing, while an elegktikos, provided the above definition, is a rhetorician. Nevertheless, there is one important distinction to be made between an elegktikos and a rhetorician. Both are masters in the art of discussion or speech, yet unlike the rhetorician, the elegktikos is and will always be driven by truth and will always strive to disprove error and to elicit veracity. The rhetorician is also good at the art of discussion but does not necessarily convey the truth, for the duty of the rhetorician is to convince, persuade,

31 Plato and Thomas G. West, Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation, with a New Translation (Cambridge University Press, 1979), 12-13. 32 Michel Foucault, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981-1982, ed. Frédéric Gros, François Ewald, and Alessandro Fontana, trans. Graham Burchell (Macmillan, 2005), 366. 33 Ibid., 140.

72 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM or impress. Correspondingly, the term elegktikos can be used as an intermediary to help distinguish parrhesia from rhetoric. Before explaining/defining protreptikos and elegktikos during the lecture, Foucault pointed out Epictetus’ way of looking at erroneous or misguided actions. Epictetus believed that some individuals may not be aware they are doing something wrong, something which could be harmful to them or others. Thus, individuals who are able to demonstrate, explain, and guide others in an eloquent manner and to identify the nature of erroneous or misguided actions are “really strong and skilful in the art of discourse.” If an individual is able to disprove wrongdoing and show the right path to others, he or she can be called a true philosopher or teacher.34 In part, that is precisely what Confucius and his followers aimed for. Through their discourse, they intended to persuade others, rulers and ministers in particular, and direct them towards the right path or truth, to the dao. From the very beginning, Confucianism has sought to establish a proper political order by engaging rulers and subordinates in the task of performing righteous acts using their authority to restore benevolence and cultivating the self through the study of ancient texts. Confucian discourse has aimed to formulate rationalistic political and philosophical principles in order to enhance the livelihoods of the people. As a result, the frankness of Confucianists, or of those intending to use Confucian thought to teach virtue, is relationally inseparable from parrhesiastic practices. Clear examples of Confucian parrhesiastae (plural of parrhesiastes) are the Neo-Confucian philosophers Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming. Zhu Xi was dismissed from his post as a government official for rebuking other officials for their wrong-doings, and Wang Yangming was forced into exile for impeaching one of the eunuchs.35 Both exercised parrhesia. They were not afraid to speak the truth, and they were courageous enough to confront any outcome they might have faced for speaking their minds and for speaking the truth. During the late Ming years, Neo-Confucian scholars aimed for moral reforms on account of the political turmoil of the time. In this context, the Tung-lin (Donglin 東林) party originated as an intellectual movement in an attempt to restore traditional Confucian values by way of philosophical and political activities. “At about the end of the Ming Dynasty, many philosophers who were members of the Tung-lin party sacrificed their lives for talking frankly and honestly to the emperor. This means that a Confucianist or Neo-Confucianist was expected to die for his convictions” (emphasis added).36 (This is like Socrates’ own encounter; he was convinced that his discourse reflected truthfulness and veracity, and he believed there was no other righteous way other than to expose the truth of things through the act of speaking.) Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming took Han Yu (768-824) of the Tang dynasty—often portrayed as the pioneer of Neo- Confucianism—as their inspiration due to his bravery and frankness: “as a government worker he was honest and frank in addressing memorials to the emperor; in spite of demotion and exile he was fearless; and he typified the faithful minister.”37 Han Yu, Zhu Xi, and Wang Yangming epitomise the characteristics of parrhesiastae. Similarly, through logic and reason, self- cultivation, and the realisation of knowledge, many Confucian intellectuals set aside falseness

34 Ibid. 35 Carsun Chang, The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought (Bookman Associates, 1957), 39. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., 87.

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 73 in their discourse; they grounded their thought on decency and rectitude so as to artfully express truthfulness, based on their understandings of worldly matters after having first nurtured their minds with Confucian teachings. Nowadays, scholars of Confucianism are unlikely to reach the political status of earlier Confucians. Not even first and second-generation New Confucians had the opportunity to reach administrative positions in the government as some of their Confucian predecessors did; except, perhaps, for Liang Shuming. Liang was one of the only Confucian scholars that remained in mainland China.

He is famous for his steadfast adherence to his ideals, despite enormous political pressure, which persisted until his death at a very old age, as well as standing up to and speaking face to face with Mao Zedong. Consequently, he has been admired and seen as a symbol by the New Confucians as the traditional upright Confucian scholar who never betrays the truth and dares to speak out even face to face with the tyrant.38

Therefore, due to his courage and political involvement, Liang could fall under the parrhesiastic framework described earlier. Contemporary discussions on Confucianism aim to ameliorate the political difficulties, problems, and struggles that we face today. Confucianism is political in nature, and the notion of ru emerged in ancient China as a means of improving the political conditions of the time. The downfall of Confucianism as the state ideology of imperial China came along with the collapse of the Qing dynasty in the early twentieth century; nevertheless, through the discourse of present scholars, Confucianism naturally perseveres as a socio-political and philosophical doctrine. And even though the current wave of Confucian literati is not as involved in practical politics as former Confucians, their discourse does encourage social, political, and philosophical adjustments while bearing high hopes of reviving Confucian values and of re- institutionalising the tradition. It can be argued that a living example of a contemporary Confucian parrhesiastes is Tu Wei- ming. Tu’s understanding of the Confucian tradition is revealed in his books, essays, speeches, presentations, and lifestyle. He became an engaged Confucian in his late teens while being mentored by Xu Fuguan and Mou Zongsan and can be said to be a Confucian parrhesiastes because he believes what he advocates to be true. In Confucian Thought: Selfhood as a Creative Transformation, Tu describes the Confucian faith and its relevance as follows:

In the modern pluralistic cultural context, the Confucian “faith” in the intrinsic meaningfulness of humanity may appear to be finite, historical, secular, and culturally specific. However, to the living Confucian, this faith is an articulation of truth, an expression of reality and, indeed a view of life so commonly accepted in East Asia for centuries and so obviously rational that it is singularly self-evident.39

38 Umberto Bresciani, Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement (Taipei Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies, 2001), 15. 39 Wei-ming Tu, Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (State University of New York Press, 1985), 51.

74 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Tu sees the Confucian tradition as “obviously rational” and “self-evident” inviting his audience to ponder on the idea of transforming the self through the Confucian faith to reach some sort of ultimate truth or reality. Self-examination, learning for the sake of the self, self-cultivation, understanding through inquiry, self-realisation, learning to be human, and self-awareness can help the individual reach the ultimate truth that classical, Neo, and New Confucianisms claim to offer. And if politicised forms of Confucianism consist in commitment towards virtuous behaviours, then once this apparent ultimate truth is fully realised, individuals will be able to enact their duties as members of a community or as citizens of a nation. Those who have reached an ideal magnanimous state of mind through inquiry and reflection would be inevitably inclined to engage in public service endeavouring to instil ethical values amongst the people. For instance, Confucius’ disciples and many of his followers studied the classics and other teachings in order to become political advisors and ministers or undertake government positions. Hence, linking the teachings of Confucius to modern politics and public administration can help produce a Confucian-inclined political system; one that is capable of overcoming many of the most significant social, political, economic, and environmental issues of today. Consequently, if one uses parrhesia as a political instrument for identifying specific sets of Confucian values that are adaptable to today’s politics, one might then be able to bring about positive changes in contemporary modes of governance. Parrhesia may simply be defined as the act of speaking frankly, but practicing parrhesia does not merely allow the individual to express what they believe to be the truth. It also suggests the parrhesiastes is endowed with virtuous qualities that allow him or her to profess and to frankly criticise and question with and to discourage any political measures that go against humaneness. When parrhesia is practiced, ethical behaviour is expected whilst social and political matters should be addressed. In fact, parrhesia should not only be attributed to the philosopher per se, but more importantly to people in power, sovereigns. For instance, who would not want to have ethical, genuine, virtuous, and good-willed governors who are aiming to improve the social and political conditions of a nation or state? Who would not want to have frank and righteous men and women in power in order to set benevolent examples in their communities? And there is one more important question here: to what degree are politics and ethics unified, and how can this unification be, firstly, achieved and, secondly, enhanced further? A parrhesiastes is courageous enough to speak the truth and takes risks when speaking what he or she believes to be the truth—as in the case of Liang Shuming addressed earlier. The problem lies on sovereigns or governments being distressed when their authority is defied (especially) by the power of discourse. Confucius believed virtuous men should hold positions of power; getting rid of the wicked or corrupt pleases the people, and this means that the people will come to trust the government.40 Confucius and his disciples persistently attempted to inspire others to comport in accordance with righteous behaviours. They believed ostentatious lifestyles and immoral conducts are simply foolish if harmony in society is desired. Their willingness to restore the dao through virtuous manners began with self-cultivation; the latter would ideally be enforced by those in power who would act as role models, who were willing

40 Analects 2.19

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 75 to promote ethical and moral deeds among society. If this goal were successfully attained, leaders would be respected by their subjects, and the people would be satisfied.41 Various degrees of parrhesia in the discourses of these scholars are identified in the following chapters. Intellectual abilities, realistic propositions, structure of enunciations, rhetorical instances, and relational discursive themes, among various other observations, are all features that are discussed in this thesis in order to enable different processes of discourse deconstruction. It is thus possible for the dialectics of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, at the aggregate and singular levels, to acquire a parrhesiastic role. This means that of opinions, interpretative strategies, and non-subservient questioning of propositions could eventually lead to a formalisation of practical theories. Hence, with regard to the pragmatisation of Confucian discourse, the next section discusses an important element of dialectical hermeneutics that needs to be addressed in order to establish a direct trajectory for discussing some important issues related to the difficulties of textual interpretation.

The Realproblematik of Hermeneutics

Contemporary political and philosophical discussions of Confucianism rely on hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation, and it may well be argued that textual interpretation is the foundation of Confucian studies. Interpreting texts is an elaborate process that can lead to phenomenological susceptibilities and other rising complexities during the process of interpretation. There are also non-literary contexts such as expressions, verbal communications, images, and situations that also have the capacity to influence how people interpret texts, things, and events. In Confucian studies, hermeneutics is arguably the most important method for immersing oneself in the tradition. This assumption is based on the fact that Confucius edited and interpreted ancient texts, his followers interpreted his interpretations, and later Confucians re- interpreted, commented on, and built upon these and the classics. So, what was left for earlier New Confucians, and what is now left for contemporary interpreters of the tradition? The Confucian classics have been canonised. They have gone through lengthy examinations, laborious interpretations, and thousands of comments have been ascribed to them. Naturally, hermeneutics constitutes a set of problems undertaken by interpreters of the texts. This is because the orientation of hermeneutics is capable of assimilating many dimensions of the discussion at hand (e.g. philosophical, religious, political, and critical). These sets of problems constitute uncertainties and difficulties that arise whenever one attempts to understand how the composition of texts occurs and how meanings are made. Numerous cognitive processes take place, and many phenomenological happenings (past, present, and prospective) influence the way individuals interpret texts. Daily events and interactions could play a minor or major role in how people interpret texts, things, and happenings or events.

41 To illustrate Confucius’ attempts to “restore the dao in the human world,” Yu Jiyuan cites and quotes the Analects a number of times to make this point to his readers. See Jiyuan Yu, “The Practicality of Ancient Virtue Ethics,” in Virtue Ethics and Confucianism, ed. Stephen C. Angle and Michael A. Slote (Routledge, 2013), 133- 35.

76 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

But what is more important is the actual outcomes of the interpretation(s). These outcomes could be shaped by past events—including previous interpretations of texts or situations—that were influenced by cognitive processes and phenomenological happenings occurring at a particular place and time. This process is an ongoing one; it is continuous and ceaseless, which means that all our perceptions and interpretations are predisposed and influenced by past events, present situations, and even the inception of any possibly known future eventualities which individuals might assume will happen due to the paradigmatic characteristics of the philosophical avenue of cause-and-effect. Hermeneutical interpretations are emblems of the perceptions of individuals. Anything perceived by an individual is subject to interpretation, and these perceptions and interpretations are subject to scrutiny if one wishes to understand how an individual’s perception of things and events are influencing his or her interpretations of the things and events in question. For example, in hermeneutics, simple questions such as: Who wrote the text? When was it written? Where was it written? What are the main themes of discussion and purposes they serve? Under what circumstances was the text written? Exemplify a dual end. First, these questions bring us to the author and the text itself. Second, these questions are the ones the interpreters consciously or unconsciously ask while they use their perceptions to eventually construe what the author or the text aims to portray. This is conductive to two interpretive encounters: interpreting what the author is attempting to convey and interpreting what the text conveys for the interpreter (i.e. the author’s intention and the perceived meaning of the text). With this in mind, a third-party individual, an outsider, is able to reflect upon the circumstances of the author’s lifetime as well as the perceptions and judgements of the eventualities of that specific period which ultimately generated a need or desire on the part of the author to compose the writing. The language usage and context are imperative as these lead us to the perceptions and interpretations of the individual who is interpreting—through his or her perceptions—what has been written by an author. For this reason, philology and linguistics play an important role in investigating hermeneutics. The development of language structures changes with time. The way people write or the usage of specific words or phrases in certain contexts may not have the same connotation as they previously did. Usually, the authenticity of philosophical texts is validated by the originality, logic, subject knowledge, and intellectual capacities an author possesses, and this is often embodied in exegeses. Moreover, linguistically speaking, the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, among other forms of language and expression analyses, represent the basis of meaning-making. If an individual gathers information through texts and combines it with previously acquired knowledge, a personalised interpretation is automatically formed. Thus, even if an individual interprets the works of one of his or her contemporaries, the contemporary which is being interpreted has most likely been influenced by authors who have written works in the past (or by other contemporaries who have been influenced by authors who have written works in the past) and whose interpretations have been a product of the interpretations of others who have written works previous to them. In addition, phenomenology needs to be understood as the force by which it is possible for a problematic to even arise in hermeneutical studies. It is unquestionable that hermeneutics comprises a ceaseless ad infinitum effect. Arguably, it is reasonable to consider such an effect to be the basis for any particular discourse elaboration. Anything said or written can only emerge from previously acquired information and

DECONSTRUCTING CONTEMPORARY OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE 77 knowledge—this includes how words, phrases, enunciations, or texts are perceived by an actor, but it is not limited to lived experiences, situations, and circumstances, nor to a combination of one or more of all these. It is virtually impossible to precisely measure the act of interpreting as there is so much going on in a person’s qualia while the act of interpreting (a text or an idea) is taking place. As a result, hermeneutical discourse (in a philosophical sense) is not some kind of creation ex nihilo. It arises from interpreting something that has been previously said or written; causality or causation is indeed involved within verbal or written discourses, and these can only develop and co-exist because of what has already been said or written. This does not discount the fact that genuinely original ideas or discourses can take place, but in order for such to occur, it is necessary for those who devise them to have already been influenced by a number of phenomenological events; taken together, these led the individual to the cognitive processes of creating an idea or producing an original discourse. Therefore, the term Realproblematik can be used to describe the ad infinitum effect that befalls in hermeneutics as described above.42 Within the wider syntaxic expressions found in any discourse, the Realproblematik of hermeneutics emerges. It is the anaphora of interpretation as such. This is because a formal interpretation of something is always a substitute of an original element that has been produced by way of an interpretation of a previous element, which itself makes reference to a previous interpretation of another element. The Realproblematik of hermeneutics lies in interpreting an idea, text, or discourse produced by an individual who, in order to produce that specific idea, text, or discourse, had already interpreted someone else’s ideas, texts, or discourses and so forth.

Concluding Remarks

The main point of this chapter was to distinctively address a unique way of discourse deconstruction. It was stated that, in order to facilitate a discourse deconstruction, one had to understand that, in this specific study, there are two degrees of discourse deconstruction by means of singular discourse and aggregate discourse where the former shapes the latter and vice versa. Additionally, methods such as archaeology and genealogy were exemplified to represent the circumstantial effects of deeply immersing in deconstructing a discourse. These two mechanisms help us appreciate the conception and exigencies of the produced discourse(s) at intellectual and philosophical levels including the socio-political implications it can generate. Also, it was argued that rhetoric and pragmatics play a substantial role in examining language. In this study, both are essentially combined as tools. First, to analyse persuasive enunciations in a discourse or argument. Second, to understand the logic and internal structures behind a discourse used within a specific context as this leads to shape the perceived meaning of the utterance(s) among the involved parties. By using rhetoric and pragmatics, one can

42 The proposition of the term Realproblematik is not necessarily confined to hermeneutics; other concepts or beliefs where uncertainties and difficulties arise can fall into this category. It is not simply a “real problem” or an “existing difficulty”. Realproblematik is a system of concrete obstacles experienced by an actor based on the individual’s existing situation(s) or circumstance(s) contained in both subjective and objective ordeals. Thus, Realproblematik directly apprehends decision-making activities.

78 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM analyse the natural order of language construction that is used as an influential mechanism to understand the intention and meaning of the discourse in question. As a result, taking parrhesia into consideration as an instrument to gather or examine discourse shall emanate a wider vision or perspective of whether the scholarly discourses presented in this study are indeed frank and genuine. Contemplating parrhesia within discourse analysis (or deconstruction) allows us to comprehend the very specific frankness of speech used by scholars to illustrate what they believe it ought to be verbalised or written for the purposes of exposing what lies in their hearts and minds. Finally, this study is a perfect illustration of the Realproblematik of hermeneutics. To be able to deconstruct contemporary overseas Confucian discourse, one has to examine and analyse its aggregate and singular discourses. After a thorough examination and analysis has been achieved, it is possible to produce an exegesis of discourse. Moreover, the revelations or interpretations attempted in this work must themselves become subject to examination, analysis, and interpretation from others. So, if someone endeavours to interpret the work undertaken here and to write or to talk about it, that individual will also be interpreting the interpretations already produced within this study. The interpretations produced in this study are analyses of the interpretations that have been themselves produced by several contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism; in turn, each of the scholars under discussion has had to interpret other aggregate or singular discourses previously produced to be able to create his or her own discourse. Therefore, in one’s act of interpreting any given discourse, the act of bestowing meaning, while conducting the interpretation, is one that cannot be avoided.

CHAPTER 3

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS

In recent decades, the popularity of Confucian studies has risen in China and abroad; however, the quest to recognise the importance of Confucianism has been mostly limited to academic circles. Some features of Confucianism are still visible and openly practiced, both in China and in other Confucian civilisations. These are inseparable from traditional customs and values that are deeply rooted in the cultures of such societies. Currently, scholars and intellectuals who interpret and transmit the teachings of Confucius, and the philosophies that have followed them, are playing a significant role in both advocating and continuing the tradition. To make sense of modern Confucian discourse and to understand the hermeneutical narratives found in contemporary overseas Confucianism, it is useful to assess the backgrounds and motivations of those contributing to the discourse. The personal, professional, and academic undertakings differ widely among scholars, as well as their motivations, personality types, and writing styles, yet some similarities in thought are also reflected amid the discourses of these scholars. Their approach to and understandings of Confucianism help to distinguish each individual scholar, and these also affect how their interpretations are viewed by others. Broadly speaking, the scholarly contributions of overseas scholars of Confucianism are having a substantial impact on how the tradition is being understood today. This chapter attempts to the rationale behind the choice the selected scholars have made to engage with Confucianism. The point of departure to examine their discourse is done by conducting a thorough exploration of their backgrounds and inspirations, followed by an analysis of their personal experiences and influences to understand how their discourses and interpretations were constructed or shaped—and how they have evolved over time. The maturity of their discourse is reflected in their discussions and publications which allow others to see their hermeneutical interpretations and their idiosyncratic approach to the tradition. Additionally, their aims and methods are distinguished in order to provide an account of where their discourse has some limitations, and how they differ or coincide from preceding scholars and their contemporaries. The following is a critical assessment of the emergence and development of a discourse by established academic experts on Confucianism who have dedicated many years of their lives to investigate and enrich traditional Chinese philosophy.

Preliminary Engagements with the Confucian Tradition

79

80 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Scholars of Confucianism have their own motives when it comes to engaging with the tradition. Some think of it as a fascinating philosophy, and others prefer to see it as a practical way of living—or even as a combination of both. Giving value to an ancient tradition in modern times is not easy; thus, it is indispensable to learn what motivated this specific group of scholars to become profoundly immersed in traditional Chinese philosophy, and how they became acquainted with or interested in it. To begin with, the scholars under review will be split into two groups: culturally Confucian and non-culturally Confucian. Typically, culturally Confucian scholars have been exposed to Confucian values and fundamental principles during their formative years. With one exception, all culturally Confucian scholars interviewed for this project were born in China or other Confucian civilisations. These include Cheng Chung-ying, Anne Cheng, Lee Ming-huei, Ni Peimin, Li Chenyang, Bai Tongdong, Sungmoon Kim, and Ji Zhe. For obvious reasons, their encounter with Confucianism differs significantly from non-culturally Confucian scholars. Culturally Confucian scholars were raised in an environment where traditional Chinese philosophical values prevailed or existed. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the works and interpretations of non-culturally Confucian scholars are of merely trivial value compared to those of culturally Confucian scholars. Given the difference between these two groups, non-culturally Confucian scholars can be said to have a distinctive passion and keenness for the tradition; they have personally or scholarly immersed themselves in learning and exploring Chinese traditional philosophy as well as early forms of socio-cultural and political organisation in China. Because they were not exposed to Chinese traditions, customs, or principles until later, their sense of judgment, analyses, and ways of understanding and interpreting Confucianism is a refined, independent, and unique discourse which it is possible to be juxtaposed with the discourses of culturally Confucian scholars. The non-culturally Confucian scholars in this study are Robert C. Neville, Umberto Bresciani, Roger T. Ames, Lauren F. Pfister, Philip J. Ivanhoe, John Makeham, Daniel A. Bell, Stephen C. Angle, and Sébastien Billioud.

Culturally Confucian Scholars

As the label suggests, culturally Confucian scholars have been culturally influenced by various manifestations of the Confucian tradition. These manifestations can easily be observed in the family, community, education, and homeland—four things that distinguish culturally versus non-culturally Confucian scholars. One of the most prominent Confucian scholars of today is Cheng Chung-ying. He is among the few contemporary scholars who experienced the transition from Republicanism to Communism in China. Cheng grew up in Nanjing and was formally educated in the mainland and Taiwan. After college, he moved to the United States to obtain his master’s and PhD degrees. His orientation towards Confucianism was a very natural process for him. Cheng was brought up in an environment where Confucianism was very much alive; and with the help of his father, an intellectual poet and professor of classical Chinese literature, he became familiar with the Confucian classics at an early age. As a result, Cheng acquired a general understanding

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 81 of the principles and values espoused by the tradition, and this is now reflected in his works and lifestyle. Unlike other culturally Confucian scholars, the renowned French Sinologist Anne Cheng was not born or raised in a Confucian society. She was born in Paris, France a few years after her father, a famous writer and intellectual from Nanchang, Jiangxi province, went into exile to the French capital. Her parents, however, were raised in China at a time when Confucianism still held sway; thus, she was raised by culturally Confucian parents. Anne Cheng pursued post- graduate studies on China at l’École Normale Supérieure. Her research interests since then have been focused on Chinese intellectual history, ancient Chinese texts, and Confucianism. Born in Taipei to Taiwanese parents in 1953, Lee Ming-huei’s initial encounter with Confucianism came from his cultural and social encounters with the tradition. In the 1950s, the Nationalist Party of China (Guomindang) was already in Taiwan planning to re-claim the mainland from the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan, unlike the mainland, preserved many elements of Confucianism as part of the given status quo. Confucian practices and academic discussions on Confucianism were allowed; thus, Confucian discourse continued to develop in the island. As a result, Lee’s generation was able to experience a strong Confucian influence. He recalls that the average family accepted the Confucian tradition resulting in direct and indirect influence on people’s lifestyles.1 Lee’s parents were not academically involved; his father was a low-ranking civil servant and his mother a housewife. Initially, Lee wanted to study Chinese literature but took a different direction:

I originally wanted to study Chinese Literature in the Chinese Department; however, we needed to take a test. My first choice was Chinese literature, but I also liked philosophy and history. I did not pass the examination to the Chinese Department, so I entered the Philosophy Department instead. After the first year, I wanted to change, but a politics professor told me not to. Since then, I have been in the Philosophy Department, a bit accidental but not entirely by chance because I am interested in philosophy. When I think about it, it was probably a better outcome. If at the outset I studied in the Chinese Department, I might have taken a different direction.2

Keen on learning Chinese literature, Lee ended up studying a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in Philosophy—the former at the National Chengchi University in Taipei, the latter at the National Taiwan University—and obtained his PhD in Sinology and Political Science at the University of Bonn in Germany. One scholar who admits his motivations to engage with the tradition were primarily for scholarly and practical reasons is Ni Peimin. Ni makes use of his background knowledge of , scholarly training in classical Chinese, and familiarity with the culture— along with his academic training in the West—to make the best use of all these resources as a scholar.3 As for practical reasons, Ni’s personal experiences and quest for answers about life and society got him into philosophy. His initial writings focused on Greek philosophy, Hegel

1 Ming-huei Lee, interview by Rogelio Leal, September 29, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan. 2 Ibid. 3 Peimin Ni, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 15, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States.

82 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM dialectics, and Marxist . Then, he started working on Confucian virtues, comparative studies between Eastern and Western philosophies, and more recently on the term gongfu 功 夫 as the art of life. In recent years, the self-identified culturally Confucian, Li Chenyang has worked on the concept of harmony (he 和) at different levels.4 Unlike most of his contemporaries, Li spent several years as a young boy in a small village a few hundred kilometres from Confucius’ birthplace. This experience had an impact on the way he immersed in the tradition and on how he interprets it today. After receiving his master’s degree, Li moved to the United States to do a PhD. Before making Confucianism his main research area, he conducted comparative studies on Western and Daoist and metaphysics, as well as Daoist ethics. Later, he was attracted to Confucian socio-political philosophy and ethics. A lot of his philosophical training comes from his Western education, so when he decided to engage in his own cultural tradition, Li had to re-learn the vocabulary in English in order to be able to express his ideas more clearly. His most recent works focus on Confucian metaphysics and the contemporary relevance of the tradition. Currently focusing on traditional Chinese political philosophy, Bai Tongdong was fond of Chinese literature and poetry when he was a teenager. Before entering college, one of his high school professors encouraged him to do hard sciences to give him a different kind of foundation before doing research on Chinese philosophy. Bai enrolled as a physics major at Peking University (Beida). There, he attended an elective course on a general introduction to Chinese philosophy for non-majors where he discovered and became fascinated with Chinese philosophy. One of the core readings was Feng Youlan’s A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Bai had read fragments of the book while in high school but never in its entirety, so reading Feng more thoroughly was a critical moment for his career choice.5After graduating, he shifted from physics to philosophy. His current research accentuates the political and philosophical aspects of Confucianism in combination with liberal democratic values. Another scholar who theorises about the possibility of combining politicised forms of Confucianism with democracy is Sungmoon Kim. Kim was born and raised in South Korea, a society which is largely culturally Confucian in character. South Korea was under an authoritarian regime for centuries but switched to a democracy in the 1980s. This event inspired Kim to examine aspects of democracy that could merge with Korea’s still predominant Confucian culture.6 Before South Korea became a modern country, its cultural values, political organisation, and other customs were largely guided and influenced by Confucianism. Kim

4 Li’s approach to harmony is discussed in detail in a later section of this chapter. 5 Tongdong Bai, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 27, 2015, Beijing, China. 6 After the teachings of Confucius and his followers were internalised in Korea as early as the fourth century, a local Confucian culture emerged and develop. Later, with the arrival of Neo-Confucianism (especially the teachings of Zhu Xi), it matured and became the dominant state ideology. For an overview of the emergence and development of Confucianism in Korea, see Chae-ŏn Kang and Jae-eun Kang, The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of , trans. Suzanne Lee (Homa & Sekey Books, 2006); William Theodore De Bary and JaHyun Kim Haboush, eds., The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea (Columbia University Press, 1985). To learn more about the role of Confucianism in contemporary Korean society, see Kim Kwang-ok, “The Reproduction of Confucian Culture in Contemporary Korea: An Anthropological Study,” in Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic Culture in Japan and Four Mini-Dragons, ed. Wei-ming Tu (Harvard University Press, 1996); Edward Y. J. Chung, Korean Confucianism: Tradition and Modernity (The Academy of Korean Studies Press, 2015).

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 83 affirms Confucian principles were “very easily embraced by many non-Chinese, non-Han people, including Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese…as a universal discourse.”7 In the eyes of Kim, Confucianism is amorphous and universal. Although Confucianism originated in China and evolved and was developed for centuries in East Asia, Kim suggests it is not confined to a particular nation-state. Moreover, his preliminary engagements with Confucianism did not only come from experiencing South Korea’s political transition; he stresses that Confucianism had been a common practice among his family members, and he describes one of his grandparents as being a “very young enthusiastic Confucian, a traditional Confucian scholar.”8 One of the youngest scholars interviewed for this study is Ji Zhe. As a Chinese, Ji asserts he is partially rooted to this tradition because “Confucianism is somewhat the universal religion for the Chinese.” He says, “We are already born a little Confucian when we are in the Chinese society, more or less Confucian, since Confucianism has always remained a system of symbolic, spiritual, ethical, and moral reference of the Chinese.”9 Ji, however, does not identify himself as a Confucian, and even though his main research areas are Buddhism and sociology of religion, his interest in Confucianism was triggered by the current discourses that reinterpret the tradition and re-evaluate the classical texts from ethical, philosophical, and political perspectives. He also observes there is a popular mobilisation to retain, redefine, and question the purpose of Confucian education today.

Non-culturally Confucian Scholars

The main and obvious commonalty among non-culturally Confucian scholars is that they were not born or brought up in a Confucian environment. Most of them became interested in Confucianism or Chinese philosophy while pursuing their undergraduate and graduate degrees. Robert C. Neville has written widely on topics concerning Confucianism and ancient Chinese thought. His entire academic training at Yale was on . Neville’s fascination with Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism, began in the 1980s. Although he is not fluent in any Asian languages, he is an eminent theologian and philosopher that sees a lot of valuable and true ideas in Confucianism.10 Inspired by Italian missionaries, Umberto Bresciani started studying Mandarin a few months before learning he was headed to Taiwan. He was born in 1942 and grew up in Ca’ d’Andrea, a small town near Cremona, Italy. During his childhood, several Italian missionaries based in China were being sent back to Italy due to the victory of the Communists. Bresciani remembers all kinds of eccentric stories told by these missionaries and recalls they did not have much to do in his hometown except to lecture and tell stories about their experiences in the Far East.11 These stories captured Bresciani’s attention, so he became interested in doing missionary

7 Sungmoon Kim, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 26, 2016, Hong Kong, China. 8 Ibid. 9 Zhe Ji, interview by Rogelio Leal, November 13, 2015, Paris, France. 10 Robert Cummings Neville, interview by Rogelio Leal, May 30, 2016, electronic correspondence, Singapore/United States. 11 Umberto Bresciani, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 22, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan.

84 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM activity. A year after obtaining a licentiate in Philosophy and Theology at Studentato Teologico Saveriano in Parma, Italy in 1968, Bresciani moved to Taiwan on a missionary appointment. He believed Taiwanese culture was, to some extent, inferior to that of the West, so he was determined to learn more about the place and understand the people he was supposed to convert to Catholicism. New to Taipei, he enrolled in a language institute to learn Mandarin, interacted with locals, and became acquainted with Taiwanese culture only to realise the Taiwanese values and system of beliefs were rich and interesting. Because of his curiosity to understand Chinese culture, he undertook a bachelor’s degree in History and Chinese Studies at the University of Maryland, Taiwan campus, and a master’s degree in Chinese Literature at the National Taiwan University. Among the most influential representatives of contemporary overseas Confucianism is Roger T. Ames. He has dedicated many years of his life towards investigating the philosophical aspects of ancient Chinese culture. Ames sees Confucianism as an important tradition that deserves the attention of many, he thinks Confucianism is a “big piece of the human experience” that, unfortunately, has been ignored internationally:

For political reasons, for whatever economic reasons, for the last two-hundred years, Confucianism has not been part of the international discourse. So, what we are doing as human beings is, we are ignoring an important cultural resource that we might want to draw upon in order to address the present issues of our day.12

Ames is passionate about Chinese language and culture. His translations of major Chinese classics and written works on Chinese philosophy have inspired colleagues and are already inspiring future generations of scholars who are interested in traditional Chinese philosophy. His affinity to Confucianism and Chinese philosophy was triggered during an academic visit to Hong Kong in his late teens. Since then, he became fascinated with Chinese culture and philosophy to the point of engaging in a lifetime scholarly project to make Confucianism and Chinese philosophy accessible to non-Chinese audiences. Lauren F. Pfister, currently living in Colorado, United States, is a Protestant Baptist who encountered the Confucian tradition through the works of James Legge while studying at the University of Hawai‘i. Pfister studied parts of the Chinese classics, but the curriculum did not teach him and his classmates the Four Books as a whole unit. He says: “We were only taught the Lunyu and the Mengzi and maybe something of the Daxue and the Zhongyong, but it was very little; there was no systematic effort to do that. Later, we were taught other figures. There was not the kind of system and the textual effort that Legge had put into his introductions.”13 Pfister started learning Chinese in his mid-twenties and is now fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin. Initially, he wanted to work with Roger Ames in Hawai‘i, but he was advised to seek supervision from Cheng Chung-ying due to the type of research he intended to conduct. Somewhat unexpectedly, while studying philosophy at Stanford, Philip J. Ivanhoe directed his attention to East Asia—especially ancient Chinese thought and the Confucian tradition. He was a Marine Corps officer during his college years and was driven to learn more about

12 Roger T. Ames, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 27, 2015, Beijing, China. 13 Lauren F. Pfister, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 25, 2016, Hong Kong, China.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 85

Vietnam in order to better understand the role of the United States in the Vietnam War: “I just thought I should study something about Vietnam, but there was no class on Vietnam, so I started studying Chinese.”14 According to Ivanhoe, Chinese was the only East Asian language taught at Stanford at the time, and while studying the language, he became quite interested in Chinese culture and philosophy. Although Ivanhoe does not identify himself as a Confucian, he claims he has learned a lot from the tradition. He states that in order to deepen mutual understanding between different groups of people, it is necessary to learn the language or languages and history of a place.15 Nonetheless, there are scholars who are not fluent in any Asian languages but who still produce stimulating contributions to contemporary Confucian discourse or Chinese philosophy. Influenced by one of his supervisors, John Makeham began to conduct research on Han dynasty Confucian thought at the Australian National University. As a post-graduate student, he chose to study Xu Gan 徐幹—a writer, poet, and philosopher of the late Eastern Han dynasty—because there were no English works on him:

I wanted to choose a philosopher from the Eastern Han, but I wanted to choose somebody who had not been studied before in English. So, Xu Gan was the person I chose. I worked on Xu Gan for my master’s thesis and also for my PhD thesis. Through my study of Xu Gan, as an Eastern Han intellectual and Eastern Han Confucian philosopher, I became more broadly interested in the roots of his thinking and how it developed. That led me back into earlier Han and pre-Qin thought.16

Makeham’s research on Xu Gan became the source of his engagement with the Confucian tradition, as well as the point of departure in his career as a scholar of Chinese intellectual history. He sees Confucianism as a congeries; a collection of several practices, beliefs, and traditions, as a whole range of different things rather than as a monolithic tradition. For Makeham, an important point that needs to be understood when talking about Confucianism is that it needs to be clear what aspect of Confucianism is being addressed. After all, Confucianism can be learned and expressed in numerous ways. In the early 1990s, the concept of Asian values became a topic of discussion in Singapore and neighbouring territories. Daniel A. Bell was a faculty member at the National University of Singapore at the time, and since then, his interest in understanding the political components within the Confucian tradition raised. Bell thought that the notion of Asian values was quite ambiguous due to Asia’s cultural and social diversity. But, when the debate became more focused on Confucianism, he realised it was “a very rich and diverse tradition which offered answers similar to—but sometimes different and more interesting than—the ones offered within the kind of communitarian discourse” he was working on.17 Bell wrote his doctoral thesis on and criticised some of the individualistic tendencies portrayed by . As he learned more about and found valuable things within Confucianism, Bell

14 Philip J. Ivanhoe, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 28, 2016, Hong Kong, China. 15 Ibid. 16 John Makeham, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 14, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/Australia. 17 Daniel A. Bell, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 28, 2015, Beijing, China.

86 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM made a shift in his research scope towards Confucianism. His works now emphasise Confucian political meritocracy. Stephen C. Angle became interested in Chinese philosophy while doing his degree in East Asian Studies at Yale. He wrote a senior essay on late Ming dynasty Confucianism which got him interested in the sort of populism adhered to the ideas of Wang Yangming and his followers. Henceforth, Angle came across Neo-Confucian philosophy, but to come to an understanding of Confucianism—a long and changing tradition that has been a lot of different things—he began to study the classics in order to understand the classical period.18 After graduating from college, Angle wanted to pursue a degree in history but decided to do philosophy instead. He explains, “Philosophy does not just seek to sort of describe ideas but actually to engage with them critically and think about how they are relevant today.” 19 Angle is a self-identified Confucian philosopher. He is interested in learning about how cultures differ from one another, and how ideas of morality and other philosophical questions develop and are maintained within cultures. His inquisitiveness led him to study philosophy and the Confucian tradition. Based in Paris, France, Sébastien Billioud’s research concentrates on modern and contemporary Confucianism from an anthropological and sociological perspective. For most of the 1990s and early 2000s, Billioud lived in Asia. Starting in 1993, he moved to Beijing and spent nearly ten years in China. Then he became a researcher at the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China in Hong Kong between 2006 and 2010. Billioud obtained his master’s and PhD degrees in Chinese Studies from the University Paris-Diderot. He wrote a doctorate dissertation on the role of intellectual centred on Mou Zongsan’s philosophy. Trying to understand the fate of Chinese traditions and their contemporary relevance has been Billioud’s main research objective.

Culturally vs Non-culturally Confucian Scholars

As discussed above, the preliminary engagements scholars have made with the tradition differ considerably—even among members of the same category. On the one hand, culturally Confucian scholars were born in Confucian societies or raised by culturally Confucian parents. Their childhood experiences, parental influences, personal interests, and socio-cultural and political environments were key elements in defining their career choice. On the other hand, non-culturally Confucian scholars came across Confucianism and other Chinese traditions at a later stage of their lives. Most of them began to study Chinese traditional philosophy during their college years. They have also lived (whether long-term or short-term sojourns) in China or other Confucian societies in order to immerse themselves in the culture, learn the language, conduct research, and undertake academic positions. Most, if not all, scholars under review see Confucianism as a viable means of addressing contemporary socio-political matters; or at the very least, as a cultural element to help people understand the development of Chinese intellectual history. This ancient tradition is distinguished for the continuity expressed by texts, commentaries, monographs, and

18 Stephen C. Angle, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 11, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States. 19 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 87 interpretations of Confucian literati. Past Confucian scholars endeavoured to minimise issues faced by individuals, society, and public administrators; nowadays, many contemporary overseas scholars are emulating what Confucian literati have done in the past. They examine the tradition, address its historical significance, and investigate ways to make it relevant at this current time and epoch. As we will see in the following section, the main influences and meaningful experiences of some of these scholars are crucial in terms of the way they conduct research and interpret the tradition. For many of them, the works and direct guidance of twentieth-century New Confucians have been crucial in the way they perceive the tradition. Some of these scholars were pupils of New Confucians while others took their works and thought as inspiration. Many scholars, however, have taken different and unique approaches to the tradition vis-à-vis their mentors.

Influences and Meaningful Experiences

Contemporary scholars of Confucianism are contributing to the creative processes this tradition has been able to sustain for more than two thousand years. Having been influenced by family members, texts, professors, colleagues, personal experiences or a mix of these, everyone has their own motives and reasons which have led them to immerse themselves in the tradition. While some scholars find Confucian philosophy an intellectual academic challenge, others prefer to disseminate, practise, and live the tradition. Once the social and political foundation for most of imperial China, Confucianism today has been concentrated in academic circles. Nevertheless, an attempt to reintroduce Confucianism at different cultural, social, and political levels is being prompted by a number of scholars. As stated in the previous chapter, events in history and ideas found in social and cultural constructs influence the power of discourse. Therefore, it is important to analyse who and what influenced the scholars under review since they are prompting fresh ways of understanding Confucianism. With a few exceptions, most scholars under review did not establish a genealogical student- teacher relationship with first or second-generation New Confucians, but certainly, all of them have been influenced by them. Cheng Chung-ying, Roger T. Ames, and Lee Ming-huei are three scholars who had direct relationships with first and second-generation New Confucians. Cheng Chung-ying came across Confucianism at a very early age. His father introduced him to the Four Books when he was a child, and he attended a school under the modern education system established by the Guomindang while the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) was taking place. He recalls Confucian values were part of the culture and is rather mindful of the role each individual partook in society; especially when it came to the etiquette of addressing people appropriately as it is a sign of respect. In Confucianism, this could be viewed as zhengming 正名, or the rectification of names; nevertheless, zhengming is not just a matter of the etiquette of addressing people, it may be interpreted in various ways and is often given

88 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM political connotations inclined to virtue and social order.20 Born in Nanjing, Cheng and his family were forced to move to Chongqing when he was two years old due to the Japanese invasion.21 Eight years later, they went back to Nanjing and detoured south to Jinhua, Zhejiang province. Because of the on-going civil war between the Guomindang and the Communists, he had been off school for more than half a year and attended lessons with a private tutor. At the same time, Cheng was encouraged by his father, whom he describes as a “very modern person, but also very Confucian,” to recite the Four Books; he stresses that nobody in particular influenced him maybe except his father. He says, “He influenced me in how to become a good man…, he asked me to read relentlessly the classical essays and explained to me the essay called ‘Origins of the Dao’ by Han Yu, of the Tang dynasty, which is probably the beginning of Neo-Confucianism.” 22 After moving from one place to another, Cheng and his family returned to Chongqing, reached Chengdu, and finally settled in Taiwan in 1948. He was nearly twelve years old at the time and had already experienced eight years of bombings and the death of one brother and two sisters. The resentment towards the Japanese invasion remains vivid in his memory. In Taiwan, Cheng continued to read the Four Books and the Historical Records of Sima Qian 司馬遷. These texts strengthened his foundation in Confucian philosophy. He admits that it was easier for him to read classical texts and poetry and to have access to May Fourth literature while in Taiwan because the Guomindang did not merely keep the peace; they also maintained the Chinese way.23 When he enrolled at the National Taiwan University, Fang Dongmei was his first philosophy teacher. Influenced by Fang, Cheng was exposed to Western philosophy, and while in the United States, he became more familiar with the works of ancient Greek philosophers as well as with the works of other philosophers including Nietzsche and Whitehead. He also investigated certain aspects of Christianity and developed interests in learning how this tradition understood the concepts of nature, spirituality, Heaven, and transcendence.24 Cheng also had regular interactions with Xu Fuguan since Xu was his father’s friend.25 Before moving to the United States, Cheng’s father presented him the Five Classics and wrote his wishes on them: “Do read the Five Classics of our early sages so that you will

20 Confucius defined and explained the importance of zhengming in the Analects 13.3, it reads: “If something has to be put first, it is, perhaps the rectification of names.” One can argue that if the rectification of names is properly undertaken, perhaps society may flourish in favourable ways; just as exemplified in the Analects 12.11, when Confucius was asked about government. His response implied that if everyone assumes their role, a well- ordered society is likely to be established. For an account of Cheng’s thoughts and interpretations of zhengming, see Chung-ying Cheng, New Dimensions of Confucian and Neo-Confucian Philosophy (State University of New York Press, 1991), 221-32. Other interesting works that address zhengming are: Kurtis Hagen, “Xunzi’s Use of Zhengming: Naming as a Constructive Project,” Asian Philosophy 12, no. 1 (2002); Hui-chieh Loy, “Analects 13.3 and the Doctrine of “Correcting Names”,” in Confucius Now: Contemporary Encounters with the Analects, ed. David Jones (Open Court, 2008); Sarah A. Mattice, “On ‘Rectifying’ Rectification: Reconsidering Zhengming in Light of Confucian Role Ethics,” Asian Philosophy 20, no. 3 (2010). 21 In the middle of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), the Japanese conducted a bombing operation known as the Bombing of Chongqing. This took place from 1938 to 1943. During these years, Professor Cheng Chung-ying and his family were living in Chongqing. 22 Chung-ying Cheng, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 18, 2015, Beijing, China. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Chung-ying Cheng and Nicholas Bunnin, eds., Contemporary Chinese Philosophy (Blackwell Publishers, 2002), xii.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 89 not forget the Chinese tradition and their values when you go abroad.”26 Cheng still preserves the stack of books and his father’s memorable note in his personal library. Also influenced by Fang Dongmei—and other Confucian experts including Tang Junyi and Yang Youwei, all three his teachers during his sojourn in Taiwan—Roger T. Ames wrote his PhD thesis at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He was supervised by D. C. Lau (Lau Din Cheuk or Liu Dianjue 劉殿爵), and although Lau is not among the New Confucians, he was an exceptional Sinologist who translated important Chinese classical texts including the Daodejing, the Mencius, and the Analects. Lau and Ames also collaborated to translate the first chapter of the 淮南子, the Yuan Dao 原道訓 (Origins of the Dao),27 as well as Sun Bin: The Art of Warfare: A Translation of the Classic Chinese Work of Philosophy and Strategy (2003).28 Other figures that influenced Ames include Angus Graham, while at SOAS; and later on, David L. Hall and Henry Rosemont, Jr.—two scholars who he has collaborated with on numerous occasions by publishing books and articles on Chinese philosophy, Confucianism, and other subjects concerning ancient Chinese thought. Ames also states he has widely read , a French sociologist and Sinologist who had much influence on his way of thinking. Moreover, Lee Ming-huei’s thought was guided by Mou Zongsan. Mou was an avid Confucian philosopher whose initial writings centred on logic but who gradually shifted to metaphysics thanks to his mentor Xiong Shili—who was also the teacher of Xu Fuguan and Tang Junyi. Lee was Mou’s assistant at the National Taiwan University from around 1979 to 1982 before going to Germany for his PhD. Mou was already in his early seventies and spent most of his time in Hong Kong, but when he was lecturing in Taiwan, his wife remained in Hong Kong, and Lee took care of him. Lee had already obtained his master’s degree, so he did not need to attend any classes, but when Mou was in Taipei, Lee audited his lectures and often met him to discuss Confucian and Kantian philosophy.29 These conversations became the foundation and formation of a close teacher-student relationship. According to Lee, Mou enjoyed having conversations with young people, but many students, especially the ones who were not in the philosophy department, were intimidated by Mou due to his intellect and reputation as a great thinker. Another influential figure in Lee’s career was Huang Chen-hua. Huang is a Kant specialist who graduated from the University of Bonn. He was Lee’s adviser during his master’s and encouraged him to pursue his PhD at his alma mater in Germany. Lee also collaborated multiple times with Liu Shu-hsien. He states that Liu did not have much influence on his thought, but this relationship helped him mature his own philosophy and ideas on Confucianism.30 Furthermore, the geographical location or institutional affiliations of the scholars are key in determining who influenced them the most. Stephen C. Angle, for example, had the opportunity to work with Yu Ying-shih and Jonathan D. Spence while doing his bachelor’s at Yale and

26 Cheng, “Interview.” 27 Different from Tang dynasty Han Yu’s work. 28 The bamboo-slip version of Sunzi’s Art of War and Sun Bin’s Art of Warfare were found in Shandong province in 1972. Lau and Ames’ translation of Sun Bin’s work was published nearly three decades after the extraction of the lost bamboo slips. 29 Lee, “Interview.” 30 Ibid.

90 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM with Donald J. Munro as a graduate student in Michigan. Yu, often portrayed as third- generation New Confucian, played an important role in fostering Angle’s interest in the tradition, and Spence, who was a specialist in Chinese history, became Angle’s role model in terms of what a good teacher should be like.31 Munro’s influence on Angle came a bit later while doing his PhD at the University of Michigan; his interactions with Munro allowed him to have a clearer idea of the development of modern Confucianism helping him to avoid seeing Confucianism as something that just happened in the Warring States period. 32 Angle’s relationship with Yu, Spence, and Munro has been critical to his intellectual growth. Yu was a disciple of Qian Mu,33 and Munro studied Chinese philosophy under Tang Junyi while in Hong Kong. This implies that Angle’s thought has been indirectly influenced by Qian and Tang. Spence, on the contrary, was never a pupil of any of the New Confucians, but he is still among the most notable modern historians of China. In Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy (2009), Angle shows unconditional appreciation for his teachers by dedicating the volume to all three of them. Additionally, reading Alasdair Macintyre in his first years as a graduate student, and the interactions and support from Roger Ames over the years have both been important moments in Angle’s way of approaching Confucian philosophy. Moreover, part of the reason John Makeham started out his research on Confucianism was because his supervisor Rafe de Crespigny, a specialist in Eastern Han history, wanted him to choose a topic related to the Eastern Han dynasty. As previously mentioned, in attempts to understand the root of Xu Gan’s thought, Makeham focused on early Han and pre-Qin thought. Just before concluding his doctorate degree in the late 1980s, he was advised by William John Francis Jenner, a professor of Chinese at the Australian National University, to choose a topic that would keep him busy for at least a decade:

I was thinking about what future projects I might do after I finish my PhD…, so I thought: “Well, here I am, I know a little bit about pre-Qin and Han thought, a little bit about early Wei thought, so why not continue the trajectory and try to understand the Confucian philosophical tradition through one of its main texts.” So, I decided to work on the commentary tradition on the Analects, so the history of commentary, in particular looking at commentary as a type of philosophical form of discourse.34

Makeham’s point of departure with Confucianism started from the tradition’s earliest developments and continued all the way to the twentieth century—an academic venture which did take him ten years. He was able to grasp the origins of Confucian discourse and see its evolution and development holistically. Apart from his supervisors, Makeham has been influenced by Roger Ames, Angus Graham, and Chad Hansen. He states his relationship with

31 Angle, “Interview.”; Stephen C. Angle, interview by Karen Alshanetsky, January 10, 2017, United States. 32 Angle, “Interview.” 33 Although Qian Mu is often placed among the first or second generations of New Confucians, Yu Ying-shih objects this label. Yu states Qian was a historian—unlike Xiong Shili and his disciples who were philosophers— and claims that Qian did not try to integrate Neo-Confucian ideas to modernity; something characteristic of the early New Confucians. For a better account of Yu’s thought on Qian, see Yu Ying-shih 余英時, “Qian Mu yu xin rujia” 錢穆與新儒家 [Qian Mu and the New Confucians], in Xiandai ruxue lun 現代儒學論 [Discussions of Contemporary Confucianism] (Bafang Wenhua Qiye Gongsi, 1996). 34 Makeham, “Interview.”

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 91

Ames helped him grow as a scholar at important moments during his career. That although he never met with Graham, he certainly respects his scholarship and took the way Graham combined intellectual history and philosophy as a source of inspiration. And as for Hansen, he did not always agree with his thought, but he sees his ideas about language quite stimulating.35 One distinctive feature of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism—and most New Confucians—is that Western ideas and philosophers have had much influence on their thought. In many cases, their approach to the tradition is more oriented towards combining Eastern and Western philosophies. Self-proclaimed Confucian and Platonist Robert C. Neville was mentored by John E. Smith at Yale. Smith taught him American and how to go about his academic life.36 Neville is a philosopher and comparative theologian fascinated with ideas about truth. He takes American pragmatists John Dewey, William James, Charles Sanders Pierce, and Josiah Royce as inspiration. As concerns Chinese philosophy and his earlier comparative works, Neville states to have been influenced by Christian philosopher and eco- theologian Thomas Berry, by David L. Hall, and by Liu Shu-hsien. Later, he was taken up by Sinological scholars including Roger Ames, Cheng Chung-ying, Tu Wei-ming, and John Berthrong who helped him get acquainted with more material on Chinese philosophy and eventually accepted him as a (now senior) Confucian.37 American pragmatism has been a source of influence for several contemporary overseas scholars. In 1984, while teaching at Peking University after obtaining his master’s degree, Li Chenyang had the opportunity to meet Richard Rorty and spent time assisting and touring him in Beijing. Li’s interest in learning about Rorty’s philosophy grew based on their conversations and exchange of ideas. He read many of Rorty’s works, became more familiar with his thought, and admired his “effort to expand philosophy beyond the kind of mere classroom wall.” Li says Rorty believed “philosophy should not be confined to the ivory tower; it should go beyond it and have some influence on society.” 38 Li was also influenced by Joel Kupperman and describes him as a meticulous Western ethicist who “tried to integrate different insights from East and West together to develop his idea of ethics, which is focused on character formation.”39 Kupperman was a mainstream Western philosopher interested in Eastern philosophy, especially Confucianism. He also played a big role on Ni Peimin’s appreciation for Chinese philosophy and was his PhD adviser at the University of Connecticut. Another figure that had much influence on Ni was Henry Rosemont, Jr. While studying at Fudan University, Ni came across Rosemont, Jr., and was enthralled by his interest in Chinese philosophy:

I was just curious how come he was so interested in Chinese Philosophy and had such a high opinion about it. I did not quite understand, until later on, I rediscovered the value

35 Ibid. 36 Neville, “Interview.” 37 Ibid. 38 Chenyang Li, interview by Rogelio Leal, August 14, 2015, Singapore. 39 Ibid.

92 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

of my own tradition through reading a lot of things, among which his small book A Chinese Mirror40 had an influence on me as well.41

Ni’s interactions with Kupperman and Rosemont, Jr. allowed him to look more seriously into his own tradition. Gradually, he manifested a greater appreciation of traditional Chinese philosophy. Another factor that led Ni into studying philosophy were a set of experiences after graduating from middle school. Ni was assigned a factory job as an electrician, and one day, a six thousand voltage of electricity went through his body. It caused him to have a near-death experience. He fortunately survived but lost a few fingers. “It was quite an experience,” he recalls, “it made me think about life a lot!”42 Also, when he was a teenager, Ni and his family were seriously affected by the events of the Cultural Revolution; they were awfully bewildered by the chaos and turmoil of the time. These two happenings led him to question the purpose of life in a profounder way. Subsequently, he became interested in studying philosophy, but Chinese philosophy was not well-favoured in China when he entered college. Instead, Ni studied Western philosophy at Fudan University in search for answers and later moved to the United States to continue strengthening his knowledge in this area. Nonetheless, he ended up identifying and reaffirming the importance of his own culture while in the United State, he “started to see that the Chinese tradition had a lot of ideas that can help us to overcome the limitations of Western philosophy.”43 In 2015, Ni Peimin and Li Chenyang edited Moral Cultivation and Confucian Character: Engaging Joel J. Kupperman. Both were influenced by Kupperman, so they paid tribute to him in this volume by presenting some key philosophical and ethical issues raised by eminent scholars of Confucianism and Chinese philosophy. This work is a remarkable and outstanding product of the differences among Western and Asian philosophies; these are discussed throughout the entire volume from the perspective of Kupperman himself. The academic influences vary from scholar to scholar. In the case of political theorist Daniel A. Bell, Michael Walzer’s notion of criticising a tradition from the inside and not the outside had much influence over his way of conducting research.44 “Part of why I came to Beijing,” says Bell, “is because here the debates are so centrally focused on Confucianism and with a clear political component thinking about the political future of China, so the stakes are huge, and it is very exciting intellectually.”45 Bell also finds inspiration from peers in and outside mainland China. Among these are Jiang Qing and Joseph Chan, whose views on Confucianism concentrate more on the reforms and political implications that Confucianism itself has the potential to produce. Bell was Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at Tsinghua

40 This volume is an interesting account of China’s moral, political, economic, and social undertakings, see Henry Rosemont, Jr., A Chinese Mirror: Moral Reflections on Political Economy and Society (Open Court, 1991). 41 Ni, “Interview.” 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 For an analysis of Waltzer’s thought on moral philosophy and social criticism, see Michael Walzer, Interpretation and Social Criticism (Harvard University Press, 1993). 45 Bell, “Interview.”

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 93

University for nearly fifteen years, and in early 2017, he moved to Shandong University as the Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration. Philip J. Ivanhoe states several people had much influence on his academic career. Among them are his language teachers Kao Kung-yi (Gao Gongyi 高恭億) and Chuang Yin (Zhuang Yin 莊因), his dissertation adviser American Sinologist David S. Nivison, and scholar of Chinese poetry James Liu, to name a few. He says, “I just thought these guys had a lot of interesting things to say, and they had been affected by their study of the culture as well, in ways that I found interesting. Maybe part of that was because they were just very different kinds of people that I grew up with.”46 Ivanhoe grew up in, what he defines as, an “all- American environment”, so when he had the opportunity to interact with individuals with such different backgrounds and that were interested in China and Chinese traditions, he found it fascinating. Ivanhoe thinks that even though the United States is such a powerful force in the world, there is a tendency to think provincially, and it seems to lack the capacity of understanding other nations, even its closest neighbours.47 While undertaking studies in a Baptist seminary, Lauren F. Pfister came across the works of the German-Christian scholar Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. The latter was a polymath, an unusual social philosopher who was into speech-life linguistics and who later specialised in the nature of revolution starting from European revolutions, traversing central Asia, and ending in China.48 This encounter helped Pfister to set up his own , to create his own terminology for what Rosenstock-Huessy was doing, and to become philosophically aware of the failure of revolutions since, according to Pfister, these “are specifically ideological attempts to get rid of the past, and they always fail because they are too radical.”49 Among one of the major Confucian scholars who had an impact on Pfister’s career was Tang Junyi. He never met him, but Tang’s philosophy of culture had parallels with the things Pfister had already learned from Rosenstock-Huessy. Pfister dedicated much time to James Legge’s works and translations. He admires Legge’s life-time venture into the Four Books and the Five Classics but found it difficult to plough into these scholarly traditions given their vast scope. Nonetheless, thanks to one of his friends and classmates in Honolulu, Shao Dongfang 邵東方, Pfister had the opportunity to meet Liu Jiahe 劉家和, a historian and expert on the Commentary of Zuo. Liu and Pfister met every summer for three years and spent solid amounts of time analysing Legge’s materials and important concepts found in the Book of Documents and the Commentary of Zuo—two volumes Pfister denotes as huge and “incredibly complex.”50 Pfister also worked with Cheng Chung-ying and Zhang Xiping 张西平. He admits these associations improved his overall academic development. Learning from Cheng, Pfister developed his own thought in onto-hermeneutics (also called onto-generative hermeneutics). He finds them extremely helpful and insightful as they are consonant with the cross-cultural concerns he is interested in as a Christian intellectual in addition to the religious traditions and

46 Ivanhoe, “Interview.” 47 Ibid. 48 Pfister, “Interview.” 49 Ibid. 50 Ivanhoe, “Interview.”

94 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM current intellectual traditions that are to be found in Hong Kong.51 Moreover, Zhang Xiping, professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, is more focused on the cross-cultural interactions of “missionary-scholars.”52 Among the missionary-scholars, a specific group of persons became crucial to missionary activity in China between the 1850s and the 1950s and left behind some writings in various languages that had an enormous influence in the mainland. In the late 1990s, Zhang approached Pfister with a collection of about twenty-five different sorts of texts that included studies of Sinology in different countries including the Czech Republic, Russia, and Japan. They ended up being about thirty volumes that included “reflections on the movements toward new understandings of China from individuals who have spent time to become trained Sinologists and are interacting in various Chinese languages and then contributing to the re-interpretation of many of these things.”53 Pfister also states that other figures not associated with Confucianism or Chinese philosophy such as the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and the mathematician-philosopher Blaise Pascal also had enormous influence in his life and way of thinking. Umberto Bresciani has been influenced by a diverse group of people. He speaks highly of his Taiwan professors from the time he studied for his bachelor’s; most were Americans working in Taiwan. By the time he enrolled in the master’s programme, he had already taken three years of Mandarin lessons, but this was not enough for him to truly make sense of the lectures until the second year of his master’s. Once, he enrolled in a class with oracle bones expert Professor Jin Xiangheng 金祥恆 (1918-1989) but only attended this module a few times because he could not understand Professor Jin’s strong Zhejiang accent.54 Bresciani found every course at the National Taiwan University interesting. Language was an obstacle as it was also difficult to gain an understanding of the meaning, stories, and frame of mind expressed by each professor. However, his keen interest in Chinese traditions and culture allowed him to complete his studies. Bresciani was also interested in the history of ideas, and he ended up writing a master’s thesis on Mencius. He held the view that some of Mencius’ ideas were related to Christian thought, but by the time he finished his degree, Bresciani was not satisfied with his understanding of Mencius and Chinese culture. As a result, he decided to venture into a PhD. This decisive point before embarking on a doctorate degree came from one of his master’s thesis examiners who congratulated him, but also made it clear for him that if he wanted to understand Chinese culture, he had to understand Confucianism. 55 This suggestion was very important for Bresciani as he did not especially care about Confucianism at the time. Bresciani obtained his master’s degree in 1975, a year before the end of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, but Taiwan’s environment, government, and political structure was very different from the mainland. Bresciani recalls there was no organised cultural interruption in Taiwan.56 The cultural change experienced in Taiwan at the time was more of a

51 Pfister, “Interview.” 52 According to Pfister, this hyphenated version of the term was first introduced by Norman Girardot and later developed by Pfister himself. 53 Pfister, “Interview.” 54 Bresciani, “Interview.” 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 95 political alteration by way of democratisation and liberalisation. This, in the eyes of the Taiwanese, seemed to be a more civilised way of implementing government policy. Because of his interest in , Bresciani’s PhD was on eighteen-century thinker Zhang Xuecheng 章學誠 (1738-1801) and was told by his supervisor that if he took on a Chinese subject, he had to convince his examiners that he understood something Chinese better than they did; otherwise, he would have problems. Consequently, Bresciani conducted his study on how Western authors viewed Zhang Xuecheng. One important figure Bresciani knew particularly well and had been in contact with while in Taiwan was Liu Shu-hsien. In Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement, Bresciani aimed to give a clear historical idea of modern Confucianism; in particular, the New Confucian movement. The project was inspired by the necessity of introducing modern Confucianism to the Western public given that it was being widely ignored in the West. Bresciani was unsure whether his work was accurate; he wrote it on his own and was sceptical of his own perspectives and insights on the Confucian tradition. With the help of some friends, he brought the draft to Liu Shu-hsien. Liu read the entire manuscript and corrected a few things before handing it back to Bresciani. After reading Liu’s notes, comments, and corrections, Bresciani was confident enough to publish the manuscript. Were it not for Liu’s feedback, Bresciani would have not dared to publish the book.57 This volume has become a must-read for helping individuals understand the philosophical development of Confucianism, its evolution, and the ideas and philosophies behind the main representatives of twentieth-century Confucianism. Apart from Feng Youlan, other contemporary scholars such as Tu Wei-ming and his ideas on moral metaphysics and self-transformation made Bai Tongdong think of and interpret Chinese philosophy from a new perspective. While studying at Boston University, Bai was influenced by Burton Dreben, a student of the famous American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Bai took many courses with Dreben; the last course he took with him before Dreben passed away was one on . While reading Rawls’ Political Liberalism, Bai was able to find some answers to a question that he had been having for quite a while regarding the compatibility between Confucianism and liberal democracy.58 Initially, Bai was interested in the New Confucian school; especially the parts that focused on metaphysics, psychology, and ethics. He thinks that the approach of certain New Confucians (especially that of Mou Zongsan) who contended that Confucianism is a form of was precisely to argue about such question of compatibility. Nevertheless, Bai was always suspicious about this approach. He did not think that the Kantian philosophy and liberal democracy were fully compatible with Confucianism; otherwise, why is there a need for Confucianism if we can just read Kant? Bai often makes the frivolous remark that some scholars are trying to make Confucianism a cheerleader of liberal democracy, but he believes scholars should look more at the constructive aspects of the tradition rather than just trying to reinforce what liberal theories are already doing.59

57 Ibid. 58 Bai, “Interview.” 59 Ibid.

96 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

While taking the course on Rawls, Bai figured out that people in liberal democracies think differently and that even well-read individuals differ on fundamental issues as they cannot find consensus on certain normative doctrines. Thus, Bai argues that an “overlapping consensus” (a concept coined by Rawls) is needed to find agreement.60 Moreover, Bai’s keys ideas on the relationship between hierarchy and modernity were influenced by Stanley Rosen, a student of famous political philosopher . Rosen was critical of modernity, but he did not reject it. His criticism of modernity helped Bai to understand or to have a better sense of the hierarchical he and Strauss were both concerned with. Yet, it has been difficult for Bai to speak of his version of “Confucianism as a hierarchy” in an age of equality like today. However, the Confucian idea of upward mobility does provide some kind of egalitarian solution. Within Confucianism, everyone has the right to be educated and to even seek some sort of sagacity. Bai believes Confucianism can offer better solutions to modern problems and that everyone has potential; nonetheless, the potential of each individual naturally differs. Because of this, those who have potential should play a bigger role in political decision-making, while simultaneously following a hierarchical system, in order to make things more harmonious. In the 1980s, Sungmoon Kim was in middle school, and he became aware of the consequential changes in the social and political organisation of his country that were underway. He says,

For a long time, we were under a dictatorship, an authoritarian regime. Then, we finally succeeded in democratising our regime. But when people were taking the streets and fighting against the authoritarian forces, they mediated to grow as to break down our authoritarian government and bring about what they called “democracy” as an antithesis of our authoritarian regime without any clear vision or anticipation of what kind of democracy they wanted to realise or achieve.61

This was a key issue in South Korea’s governmental transition. The citizenry was unable to identify what kind of democracy they wanted to implement; the main concern was to bring down the old regime, become a modern nation-state, and replace authoritarianism with democracy. The scenario, according to Kim, was the following: “When people fought against the authoritarian forces, they rarely anticipated the democracy they wanted to have. If their struggle were to be successful, it would be Western-American style liberal democracy, we had no luxury discussing about that issue because now we have this enemy [the authoritarian regime], right?” 62 South Koreans felt the need to establish democracy because their government was not serving its people well, and when they finally succeeded, the modern nation-state of South Korea was created. Kim asserts that Confucianism is part of his family background, and although he never met his great-grandfather, he describes him as an “enthusiastic traditional Confucian scholar.” Kim was formally introduced to Confucian studies by his undergraduate supervisor; nevertheless,

60 Ibid. 61 Kim, “Interview.” 62 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 97 his supervisor was not an expert on Confucianism. He studied postmodernism in the United States, and after he returned to Korea, “he started developing this new interest in how to reconcile this postmodernist critique of modernity with Confucianism because Confucianism has something important to say against modernity, modern , and .”63 During his undergraduate years, Kim began reading Tu Wei-ming and Wm. Theodore de Bary. Later on, he read more contemporary figures such as Daniel A. Bell and Joseph Chan. According to Kim, there are not too many people in Korea engaged in this field and many still believe the struggle towards modernisation has a lot to do with being a Confucian culture. Even though Korean and other Confucian civilisations are quite modern, many people view Confucianism as an outdated, patriarchal, and oppressive tradition. These sorts of ideas and other negative connotations are regarded as hindering the evolution towards a more modern culture and state.

Propagating Confucianism: Intention and Intended Audience

Presently, Confucianism is grounding in theoretical concepts, commentaries, and literary works. There have been numerous discussions on its practicality, but on many occasions, it has been regarded as outdated and difficult to assimilate to a more pragmatic outlook. While most scholars of Confucianism have a specific intention and audience in mind, to whom they intend to communicate their ideas and interpretations, others choose not to confine their works to a particular group of people.64 Many have devoted years of their lives towards interpreting the tradition in order to either fulfil their own individual scholarly interests or to disseminate what they think is relevant today. The intended audiences of the scholars often envelop three groups of people: the Western reader, peers and colleagues, and people in positions of power. For the most part, contemporary overseas Confucian discourse is addressed to English-speaking audiences; however, several scholars write or have written works in Chinese and other European or Asian languages. Their translations can also be considered part of the discourse. Contemporary overseas scholars, especially philosophers and political theorists, have envisioned a Confucianism that could well become integral to twenty-first-century global affairs. Scholars may differ in terms of subject of study, personal views, or intended audience, but they do address much of their writings to elites and political leaders. Intended audiences vary among scholars, yet because fundamental aspects of Confucianism are intrinsically concomitant to socio-political affairs, many of them do aim to transmit their interpretations to those in positions of power. One of the main objectives of this study is to unveil whether Confucianism is capable of having an impact on modern societies and Realpolitik. By analysing the intentions and hermeneutical thinking of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism, ways to put theory into practice could be instituted. Overseas Confucian discourse can be used as a resource for

63 Ibid. 64 For a brief explanation of what is meant by intention in this section please refer to The Folger Papers, 1. The Argument for Intentions in Stanley Fish, Professional Correctness: Literary Studies and Political Change (Oxford University Press, 1995), 127-28.

98 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM people worldwide, to help them understand what Confucianism is, and what it means to the contemporary world. Generally speaking, integrating fundamental values and structures found in Confucian, Eastern, and Western socio-political philosophies can help to improve the moral and ethical narratives of societies around the world.

Educating and Inspiring

For centuries, Confucianism was the state ideology of imperial China, and it had a significant influence on the lives, behaviours, and attitudes of aristocrats and the general population. Today, some scholars are making efforts to reinvigorate this tradition. In the mid-1980s, Confucianism made a “comeback” in China, but instead of reclaiming its position as the statal guiding principle and ethico-political ideology, it has mainly become appealing to scholarly audiences allowing current academic discussions and interpretations to be valuable and essential for the continuation of this tradition. In recent years, several overseas scholars have gained popularity in China. Roger Ames, for instance, modestly claims he is not so well-known and that he has limited influence on the people he speaks to or the people that he could inspire. On repeated occasions he is invited to do presentations, attend conferences, or be a keynote speaker at Chinese universities to present the sort of Confucianism that has been associated with his name; this has allowed him to have a wider audience in China. Ames’ purpose is to encourage his Chinese audience “to see Confucian culture as world culture,” and to “make it integral to world culture.”65 China and other Confucian civilisations are significantly changing the economic and political order of the world, and an important question Ames asks is, “What about the cultural order?” He believes Confucian culture will make a difference and that there will be an audience that would want to learn about it.66 Ames’ works and interpretations reveal the importance of Confucian culture at a global scale, especially in terms of integrating Confucian and Western cultures. He seeks to encourage the Chinese to see Confucianism as world culture but also “vice-versas” this by presenting it to the non-Chinese as a culture that is potentially of integral importance to the rest of the world. More importantly, he wishes to encourage people in power to understand Confucianism, as it is precisely such people who are able to make a tangible difference in socio-political affairs. Ames asserts that one phenomenon that does not occur in other nations, and that has been part of Chinese tradition for centuries, is that “Confucianism is a collaboration between the academy and the government in China.” He affirms that “the academy has always been integral to and has had a great influence on shaping the direction of the government.” However, Ames believes this is viewed with great suspicion by Western scholars because many see themselves as the loyal opposition that speak truth to power.67 Other scholars also take a similar approach. For instance, Ni Peimin states his intended audience includes scholars and university students, but as a public intellectual he tries to make

65 Ames, “Interview.” 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 99

“Confucianism known and appreciated more broadly by other civilisations, by representatives of other civilisations.”68 Ni wants people to learn about the tradition, and he is willing to help them better comprehend what is going on in contemporary Confucian studies. Also, Bai Tongdong declares that he does not have a specific audience in mind, yet he acknowledges it is mostly composed of colleagues and other academics. He strongly advocates a Confucianism that can be adapted outside the Sinosphere; one that “is not only for today’s Chinese but for the whole world.”69 He observes that a number of Confucian scholars in China reject the idea of doing things which are not rooted in Confucianism and stresses that this “understanding of Confucianism is a betrayal of original Confucianism.” Bai argues that “Confucius and Mencius never thought they were doing something only for the Chinese, in the narrow sense of that term, they use the term ‘Chinese’, but by ‘Chinese’ they simply meant the civilised people.”70 According to Bai, the Chinese people “lost confidence in the sort of universality of Chinese way of life” during the twentieth century leading to the belief that Confucianism was something particular to the Chinese.71 He writes,

From the middle of the nineteenth century on, under the attack of Western gunships and ideas, many Chinese intellectuals lost their confidence first in material things and the theories behind them that traditional China offered, and then the traditional political structures; instead, they were convinced of the universality of Western science and democracy.72

The question here lies on the universality of values (Confucian and Western). But, in modern societies there are different values systems which have gradually transformed as the world evolves. The many characteristics contained in today’s global politics—including its social, educational, and economic features and other critical aspects that influence people’s day-to- day lives—are subject to diverse ways of thinking which are often monopolised by idiosyncratic or national interests. If certain aspects of Confucianism are presented to non- Confucian civilisations as concomitant to their own values, a pluralistic system may be reached. Hopefully, this will result in social stability and harmony among civilisations. The opposite case can be seen in Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore; these are three Confucian civilisations that have adopted various Western standards into their own cultures. If the West becomes more aware or accepting of non-Western values, their societies will tend to flourish since it is essential and indispensable today to comprehend, tolerate, and to entertain other ideas. It is common that overseas scholars aim their works at students. Although some scholars conduct research for personal reasons and the intellectual gains they may obtain, they often work at institutions of higher education as professors. John Makeham’s intended audience, for instance, depends on the type of book or publication he is working on. Currently, Makeham

68 Ni, “Interview.” 69 Bai, “Interview.” 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Tongdong Bai, “An Old Mandate for a New State: On Jiang Qing’s Political Confucianism,” in A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future, ed. Daniel A. Bell and Ruiping Fan (Princeton University Press, 2012), 113.

100 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM and a group of international colleagues are translating the Dasheng Qixin Lun 大乘起信論 (The Awakening of Faith), described by Makeham as “probably one of the most influential texts in East Asian Buddhist history.” This translation, forthcoming end of 2019, is deliberately aimed at students and the non-specialist, yet Makeham tends to keep his academic and intellectual peers in mind. He feels the need to produce good and solid scholarship, so they would also benefit from it.73 The audiences of scholars do vary, and sometimes academic works are addressed to different audiences with a specific purpose in mind. In Sagehood, for example, Steven C. Angle directs his work to other scholars in the field as well as to a broader Chinese audience. He wants to assure others that his scholarship is open for criticism by colleagues, other experts, and those who are already rooted to Confucianism whether they agree or disagree with his ideas. Additionally, he encourages his colleagues in the West, especially people who conduct research on Western philosophy, to open up a dialogue with Confucianism. Angle also allows a broader audience, the non-specialists who may be interested in China, to possibly see Confucianism from his own perspective: as a live and sophisticated philosophical tradition that is not obsolete and that is also capable of further development.74 Nonetheless, Sagehood is also intended to be an inspiration for people who are curious about what ancient Chinese philosophy may have to offer in contemporary times.75 In a different work, Angle declares that, as a philosopher, he feels he is “part of exciting conversations about contemporary Confucian philosophy” and that even though the tradition has faced great challenges in the last hundred years, it has “become more global than at any time in its history.”76 Confucianism could be more easily understood by Confucian and non-Confucian civilisations altogether due to the scholarly efforts to make available the teachings of Confucius to diverse audiences. Many scholars endeavour to educate and inspire others through their teachings and works, but these must be easily adopted by others. Confucianism is not the only path towards some kind of morally-guided lifestyle, and other traditions and values may be more easily accepted or accommodated by different societies; however, as a humanistic philosophy, it has valuable insights that are capable of being embraced by any person. With the help of scholars, this tradition can be made available to the populace through the education system. The purpose shall be to help people understand some of the key items within Confucianism that can aid individuals to acknowledge their role in society and to be self- governing without overlooking the interests of the majority.

Management & Alternate Governing

Confucianism can be viewed as a system of philosophical values and political ideas that are intended to legitimise governance through ethical and moral rule. It suggests there must be benevolent ruling: the sort of ruling that is virtuous and which promotes humaneness and

73 Makeham, “Interview.” 74 Stephen C. Angle, Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2009), 8. 75 Ibid. 76 Stephen C. Angle, Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy (Polity Press, 2012), viii.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 101 justice for the betterment of society. This—along with certain aspects found in the rules of propriety (li)—could help people to assemble substantial principles that are capable of inspiring altruistic behaviours in the areas of power politics and decision-making processes in public administration. One scholar who has been actively engaged in collaborating with several people in diverse fields is Cheng Chung-ying. He not only sees himself as a Confucian scholar, but also as a comprehensive Chinese philosopher. Cheng has organised the Journal of Chinese Philosophy for over forty years and the International Society for Chinese Philosophy and the Yijing Society for nearly as long. Many of his works focus on ethics, but he has also developed an integrative philosophy of management to help advance a sort of Confucianism that can be understood by people as virtue ethics—yet not confined to role ethics. He explains that “ethics is for you to self-govern and management is for helping people to be institutionally related to each other and work together to achieve a goal.”77 In 1992, Cheng proposed to look at management using Chinese cultural traditions and philosophy in his article “The ‘C’ Theory.” He believes “management studies should not be confined to either empirical or theoretical studies, but must embrace integrative and holistic studies of culture, values, and philosophy” for a guided and refined management practice.78 The “C” Theory is based on the four equivalent Chinese terms in English: creativity (chuangzao xing 創造性 or chuangzao li 創造力), centrality (hexin 核心 or zhongxin 中心), change (yi 易 or bian 變), and coordination (xietiao 協調); thus, the letter “c” in “C” Theory. It integrates “rationalistic management” and “humanistic management” in a way that these become a whole system to understanding reality according to the dao as epitomised by classical Chinese philosophy.79 Cheng has an interesting and creative way of looking at ethics and management. He has written widely on global ethics and other topics in various fields of philosophy from a Confucian point of view, and this has helped his writings and interpretations to reach a wide audience. Cheng believes self-cultivation and interaction are important for advancing governance and management. His discourse on management promotes and helps people to be involved so that they can aim for leadership and not merely seek power and authority. Another item that needs to be taken into consideration is the applicability and legitimacy of Confucianism today. Daniel A. Bell’s The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (2015) presents an alternative way of choosing government officials. In his book, Bell reaches out to Western audiences in an attempt to have them reflect upon the idea that China has a sort of moral and legitimate way of organising politics where “progress can be judged according to the standards of mixture of political meritocracy and democracy, not just what we think from the West as the only legitimate form of government.”80 Bell hopes these ideas are recognised by the Western reader (or anyone else) to the point where they can clearly understand that “there is some sort of highly imperfect, but still more or less morally legitimate

77 Cheng, “Interview.” 78 Chung-ying Cheng, “The ‘C’ Theory: A Chinese Philosophical Approach to Management and Decision- Making,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, no. 19 (1992): 126. 79 Ibid., 146-48. 80 Bell, “Interview.”

102 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM and politically realistic alternative to what we [in the West] think of us as a legitimate form of selecting rulers.”81 This is because most modern political systems are grounded in democracy (or liberal democratic values and all things represented by such), as it is believed to be one of the best (or at the very least, the “least-worst”) ways of directing political affairs. It is also believed that democracy offers freedom, liberty, equality, and justice for all. This, in turn, gives the impression that the most reliable means of electing officials is through a voting system, where everyone is entitled to choose who they want to represent them and their needs. Unfortunately, when it comes to using suitable methods of selecting political leaders, Bell admits we are stuck in a permanent teacher-student relationship; one where China is the student and the West is the teacher. Bell says people in the West believe they have found the right system of selecting officials, and they will by no means be open to the possibility that someone else (e.g. China) has come up with a suitable alternative. He finds this to be an appalling colonialist attitude that is not suitable to our time and that will only blight relationships between China and the West.82 Bell claims the one person, one vote system is not the best way of choosing leaders. Thus, his interest in combining democracy and political meritocracy has been subject to criticism given that he has been a strong supporter of the Chinese Communist regime as well. His works and interpretations are not only addressed to Western readers but also to Chinese leaders. Being immersed in China’s public culture as a professor and public intellectual, as well as a contextual political theorist, Bell wants to “make coherent and rationally defensible the leading political ideas of the public culture” in China and to encourage people to think of them critically and to make suggestions for changes based upon them. Bell asserts that political ideas within Confucianism place an emphasis on political meritocracy, so he believes it ought to be more widely accepted as “the political system should aim to select and promote leaders with superior abilities and virtues.” However, “Which abilities matter? Which virtues matter? What are the mechanisms that are most likely to select leaders with those abilities and virtues?” are the sort of questions Bell often seeks to answer.83 According to Bell, these questions have been central to political theorising in China ever since Confucius and that they were of fundamental importance for imperial governance and for the selection of bureaucrats; as well as for the civil service examination system which played an enormous role among the mechanisms used for selecting leaders. Bell describes himself as a humble academic who does not assume a pretentious attitude. And, although he does not think his suggestions will be adopted, he believes that putting them out there might have some vague influence on people; especially the intellectuals or reformers who are more likely to read his works rather than the general public.

Geographical Focus

81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 103

The discourse of some of the scholars is aimed at audiences in specific regions of the world. The political theorist Sungmoon Kim specifically aims his works at East Asians. He is convinced his scholarship can provide a different view of politics that is capable of resonating with Korean, Chinese, or Taiwanese people. This is a view where Confucianism is not a useless ancient tradition but one that “can be reconnected to recent sophisticated political theories” and has a lot to offer today as a realistic, attractive, and applicable political idea.84 Kim is actively engaged in finding ways to ameliorate the way democracy functions in East Asian countries by trying to help people “operate their democratic system better without forfeiting their cultural identity.” 85 He thinks academic, professional, and intellectual conversations on modern Confucianism simply depict different understandings of the tradition while ignoring the actual audience; i.e. the people. This means that Kim tries to put his theories into practice by addressing it to the citizens of East Asian cultures and by making it relevant to individuals and to their social environment. He hopes that in doing so, they will accept these as modern political ideologies or forms of government. It is easier for East Asians to accept Confucianism as they already are familiar with the tradition itself. Another scholar who looks into political philosophy and East Asian cultures is Li Chenyang. Li pays particular attention to two groups: people interested in China and East Asian cultures, and people interested in socio-political philosophy and ethics. 86 He is primarily read by colleagues and people interested in Chinese and East Asian studies, but he does wish to expand his audience and reach a broader range of communities. In recent years, he has engaged in meaningful discussions with colleagues by constructively criticising their works and vice versa. Li has been actively publishing mostly in English in addition to producing several Chinese works. Alternatively, Sébastien Billioud, Anne Cheng, and Ji Zhe are addressing most of their works to French speaking communities. Some of their works have been translated into English or other languages, but apart from their French and English writings, important contributions from these scholars also include translations from Chinese into French. In 1981, Anne Cheng published her own translation of the Analects in French (second revised edition in 1985). Since then, it has been used by French speakers who are interested in learning or deepening their understandings of the teachings of Confucius. Cheng’s annotated translation includes an introduction to the life of Confucius and his teachings explaining how these eventually became the basis of what it is now known as Confucianism. She also offers a brief explanation of central Chinese characters used throughout the Analects, the annexed original version of the text in Chinese, explicative notes through the text, and chronological charts. Her volume was used to produce Portuguese and Italian versions of the Analects in 1983 and 1989 respectively. Billioud, for his part, has also contributed to disseminating publications originally written in Chinese. In 2005 and 2009, he translated works of Zheng Jiadong 鄭家棟, Lee Ming-huei 李明輝, Gan Yang 甘陽, and Jiang Qing 蔣慶—all well-known contemporary scholars in the field. As for Ji Zhe, he writes mostly in French, but he has also published in English and Chinese. As opposed to Cheng and Billioud, Ji has translated works from French and English

84 Kim, “Interview.” 85 Ibid. 86 Li, “Interview.”

104 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM into Chinese; thus, he is making an effort to reach out to Chinese audiences as well. However, his translations are mainly focused on sociology and include works from Marcel Mauss and Émile Durkheim.

Distinguishing Discourses, Methods, and Aims

Contemporary Confucian discourse consists of a series of written works and verbal statements which mainly address socio-political and philosophical matters. The role of the scholar (or discourse elaborator) is to take specific elements from the tradition, scrutinise them, and demonstrate what is substantial and worthy of clarifying or illustrating. As a consequence of this, the tradition develops and evolves. Scholars use their interpretations and provide insights from their thought in order to convey the inherent relevance of the tradition by formulating quality scholarship on a range of topics addressing Chinese philosophy and Confucianism. Because this tradition is so rich, and the array of areas and themes within are so multitudinous, its foundations can be discussed from a variety of perspectives. It has thus become the for scholars engaged in conducting research on Confucianism to convey their own individual, unique interpretations in order to either distinguish their views and approaches from others or to find commonalities amidst their discourses. Most scholars aspire to have their voices heard. Their discourses represent or convey their main ideas and analyses. They often examine, reflect upon, and pursue initiatives that assist them in clearly voicing their opinions, which are sometimes controversial, and help them distinguish these from views expressed by other scholars. This has resulted in some interesting debates and criticisms among scholars because the perceptions and understandings of the tradition are not necessarily mutually favourable. The methods and approaches towards interpreting Confucianism vary, and this is one of the reasons that has made it a long-lasting living tradition. The intentions of the scholars have become the object of their research, so in the absence of any specific aim or purpose, there would be no necessity of producing any intellectual discursive reflections to justify their engagement with Confucianism. The twentieth century saw some major shifts in the way Confucianism was discussed, interpreted, or portrayed. Nowadays, Confucian discourse has become a matter of ideological interpellation; this means that there has been a need to revive or give to certain aspects of the Confucian ideology in modern times. Many scholars assert that Confucianism contains “true,” “natural,” or “obvious” designs that can be normatively invigorated and implemented into socio-political realms. However, Confucianism, as an ideology, should not become a dominant discourse of power; otherwise, it could be used by despotic rulers to their advantage—as it happened in several occasions during dynastic times. Instead, Confucianism might be able to act or function as a mediator amid certain given systems of power, social structures, and individuals while offering the latter an identity, a sense of belonging, and reassurance amid their own individual perceptions of their constituted realities and conditions

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 105 of existence.87 Consequently, scholarship is of key importance for preserving some important components of Confucianism that interlink with, and that are of relevance or of substantial importance for, many of the social, political, philosophical, and spiritual realities that have been (and still are) present in the world. These form a sort of “quaternity” found in the myriad things, and they thus become aspects of the human experience that play an essential role in shaping societies and cultures. After the reform and opening policy of the late 1970s, re-introducing traditional values in mainland China has been a prominent intellectual and academic agenda. This project is aimed towards shaping and procuring a refined cultural identity that can help the Chinese stand out in today’s world. The resurgence of traditional Chinese philosophy can be taken as an all- embracing product that is helping to shape today’s Chinese cultural identity. Even so, the core ideas that make China what it is today are still bound to the specific developmental trajectory of its . The dominant ideology of pre-modern China was rooted in Chinese philosophical traditions, and Confucianism was its social and political backbone. Confucian inclinations shaped the mores and values of the people, and these were based on what are now recognised as the five constant Confucian virtues: humaneness (ren 仁), righteousness (yi 義), propriety (li 禮), wisdom (zhi 智), trustworthiness (xin 信). These are important and relevant ethical and moral orientations that can help one formulate meaningful relationships and respectable comportments. The re-emergence and continuity of Confucian discourse during the twentieth century allowed intellectuals and scholars to illustrate their different approaches, and many of these, in turn, outlined the clashes between Confucian ideals and modern world affairs. Their viewpoints depended a great deal upon their personal and academic interests. Today, contemporary Confucian discourse not only addresses ideological aspects of the tradition but is also steeped in a pragmatic functionality that needs to be distinguished from a mere system of abstract concepts that has no practical objectives.

Morality, Religiosity, and Interdisciplinarity

In today’s overseas Confucian discourse, scholars take different approaches towards the tradition. Several scholars including Tu Wei-ming, Yao Xinzhong, Lauren F. Pfister, John H. Berthrong, and Robert C. Neville engage in exploring the religio-philosophical contingencies

87 French philosopher used the term interpellation to explain the effects ideology has on individuals, and the way they subconsciously internalise such ideology as part of their existing realities. According to Althusser, ideology acts or functions in such a way that it “subjectivises” individuals (i.e. ideology makes individuals into ideological subjects); he calls this process interpellation. In the present context, taking the hermeneutic interpretations of the scholars of Confucianism, it can be said that Confucian discourse emancipates or sets the ground for an (Confucian) ideology that could interpellate individuals at the base and superstructure (as understood in Marxist theory) of society. Hence, using Confucian tenets (such as role ethics or the rectification of names) and its humanistic orientation as “ideological state apparatuses,” authoritative ideological subjects can be produced at different levels of society—ideally, having a greater impact on those individuals in positions of power. For a better understating of interpellation and its relation to ideology, see Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an Investigation,” in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (Monthly Review Press, 1971).

106 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM of the tradition. A phrase widely used by Tu, rephrased from the Analects 14.24, is “learning for the sake of the self.” This, according to his own understanding of the Confucian project, signifies “learning to be human.” Tu explains that learning to be human is a comprehensive process “that entails our ability to embody all forms of interconnection in our self-awareness and personal knowledge: self, family, community, society, nation, world, and cosmos.” 88 Learning to be human, in the Confucian sense, is a process of self-cultivation. It is rooted in the capacity of the human person to attain knowledge, and it is embedded in epistemological conditions that the individual-self accepts on behalf of what is taught, learned, and understood as being cosmologically uniform in character. The process of cultivating the self is premised upon a commitment to knowing the five constant virtues but being merely knowledgeable of these is insufficient. Instead, the individual must be able to understand each one as a single unit; however, it is indispensable to understand these as playing a mutually complementary role. Moreover, one of the advantages of taking Confucianism as a quasi-religious tradition is that it ventures to improve social morality, and it acts as a resource of spirituality. Yao Xinzhong writes,

The modem relevance of Confucianism is in its moral and spiritual values. Among these values, its concern about moral responsibilities, its emphasis on the importance of transmission of values, and its humanistic understanding of life, are the key elements for the Confucian relevance to the future, and will make a contribution to an ethic of responsibility, give a new momentum to the establishment of a comprehensive education system, and help people in their search for the ultimate in the age of the global village.89

According to Yao, Confucian values can and are gradually shaping social morality and improving the spiritual livelihood of the Chinese. Such values have regained popularity in the mainland (and elsewhere), and they are genuinely appealing to current generations of people who are appreciative of such.90 These values do require a wider adoption and acceptance; however, some efforts to promote positive socio-political changes are already taking place. For example, a Xinhua news report declared that the gaokao 高考 (national entrance examination for higher education) essay themes were highly politicised after they were reintroduced in the late 1970s.91 Later, during the 1980s and 1990s, the themes began to shift from politics to environmental issues along with various other matters pertaining to the rapid changes China is continuously facing. By the turn of the century, topics focused on moral behaviours, feelings, beliefs, and daily experiences of students; including themes on honesty and tolerance.92 The latter topics reflect how the government is, to some degree, interested in emphasising and promoting values and good behaviours among the youth, and these can foster new generations

88 Wei-ming Tu, “Confucian Spirituality in Contemporary China,” in Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, ed. Fenggang Yang and Joseph Tamney (Brill, 2011), 90. 89 Xinzhong Yao, “Confucianism and Its Modern Values: Confucian Moral, Educational and Spiritual Heritages Revisited,” Journal of Beliefs & Values 20, no. 1 (1999): 30. 90 Ibid., 32. 91 The gaokao was suspended throughout the Cultural Revolution and resumed by orders of Deng Xiaoping in 1977. 92 “China Focus: Evolution of ‘Gaokao’ Essay Topics Mirrors Changes of China,” XinhuaNet, June 7, 2017.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 107 of intellectuals who will strive for self-improvement in order to facilitate social and political progress. Another common practice among some scholars is to conduct comparative studies between Confucianism and other traditions. Lauren F. Pfister, who calls himself a Confucian-Christian, has been studying and translating the works of James Legge for many years. 93 He has endeavoured to expand the substance of philosophical discussions contained in post-traditional contexts of the Confucian tradition to religious matters, so it “could then be attuned to anyone that would handle those things sensitively.”94 For example, Pfister states that Yao Xinzhong has taken this approach very seriously and believes he has handled it “with a great amount of balance and awareness.”95 Pfister also takes a pragmatic approach, and like James Legge, he identifies precedents for applying Confucian philosophical principles to his own individual way of living. The ethics proper to the teachings of the tradition and the unique expressions that call for a Confucian lifestyle are both reflected by his behaviour as well as by the concrete relationships he has formed with his family members and others around him. Pfister is a Christian and the former Deacon of the University Baptist Church, Hong Kong, but he still links Confucian practices to his way of living. For instance, he mourned for his parents in the Confucian way by letting his beard grow out to help him remember he was doing it for that reason. He says, “it was lived with respect and understanding of others” and that taking this ritual time helped him mature in a form of life that allowed him to gain new insights into his own humanness.96 This experience allowed Pfister to become more articulate about and more aware of the traditions that he admires. Pfister declares that one critical aspect of his approach to Confucianism is interdisciplinarity: he learned historical archive work; he immersed himself in the works of Legge; and he used the knowledge and training he acquired on major traditions and religions and their texts and commentaries while studying at the Baptist seminary to complement his own writings and ideas. He also thinks Gadamerian-style hermeneutics fits in well with his theological training, and his textual interest in nineteenth and twentieth-century Chinese philosophy was aided by engaging with the works of Feng Youlan. The latter allowed him to become familiar with Marxist and pre-Marxist Chinese orientations that he was not taught when he was studying philosophy. Two other self-identified Confucian-Christians and major representatives of the so-called Boston Confucianism are John H. Berthrong and Robert C. Neville. 97 Their approach to Confucianism focuses on spiritual and religious aspects of the tradition that can be attractive to non-Confucian civilisations. They were trained in Western theology and philosophy but have made remarkable contributions to contemporary comparative studies of Confucianism. Interfaith religious dialogues make their discourse unique as they concentrate on the exchange

93 Pfister attributes his Confucian-Christian designation to the solid student-teacher relationship he built with Cheng Chung-ying while studying in Hawai‘i. Nevertheless, Cheng’s approach is more philosophical than religious. Pfister, “Interview.” 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 For a detailed explanation of the emergence of and what is meant by Boston Confucianism, see Robert Cummings Neville, Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World (State University of New York Press, 2000).

108 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM of ideas that can be produced between the philosophical and religious aspects of Confucianism; along with the kinds of questions Western intellectual traditions and religions, Christianity in particular, have been wanting to answer for thousands of years. “Confucianism,” writes Berthrong, “stresses questions of the meaning of ultimate life values, it includes what in Western intellectual history are considered questions of philosophy and religion.”98 Berthrong sees an opportunity to use Confucianism as a way of supplementing Western philosophical and religious archetypes and of promoting a dialogue between cultures that could provide solutions to modern day problems. Neville has a similar approach, but he prefers to be taken as a Confucian philosopher rather than as a scholar or interpreter of Confucianism. 99 Through his works, he wants to internationalise the doctrine and make it available to others: “I take myself to be a contemporary Confucian philosopher, extending the tradition to deal with our global problems. Some people think of ancient Confucians, Neo-Confucians, New Confucians, and now I seek to promote Global Confucians.”100 As of now, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and is widely practiced in Western and Western-influenced nations, so comparative studies between Confucianism and Christianity are increasingly becoming popular in both Chinese and Western academic circles. Another scholar conducting religious and interdisciplinary research is Ji Zhe. His works focus on contemporary Chinese Buddhism, Sinological sociology, and religion. Nevertheless, he has explored areas concerning the Confucian tradition in modern China. Ji states that he does not have a particular approach to the tradition but that for him it is essential to write his own thoughts and ideas: “When I read texts of certain colleagues, I wonder if they believe in what they write. Personally, I do believe in what I write.”101 Ji’s research is a personal quest for understanding phenomena; his works are closely related to his own perception and definition of the world. “My approach,” says Ji, “is to try to desacralise all those ideological discourses close to any authority. My career is a self-constructed process.”102 This way of approaching academic research is a venture towards truly emancipating one’s own ideas. Although Ji has worked on important projects concerning Confucianism and other traditions, he does not affiliate himself to any of these. He thinks of himself as a secularist, and one of his main objectives is to find the morality that is most needed in our time and epoch.

Philosophy and Self-making

It is important to note that scholars committed to the study of Confucianism do not necessarily believe that the teachings of Confucius (and its subsequent philosophies) are superior to non- Confucian values. Confucianism can be regarded as an inclusive humanistic philosophy: it concerns the well-being of humankind without prioritising specific civilisations. Likewise, it

98 John H. Berthrong, All under Heaven: Transforming Paradigms in Confucian-Christian Dialogue (State University of New York Press, 1994), 72. 99 Here, for example, we can see the distinction between a Confucian scholar versus a scholar of Confucianism. 100 Neville, “Interview.” 101 Ji, “Interview.” 102 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 109 has certain worldly and cosmogonic features that are capable of providing a deeper anthropocentric and anthropocosmic understanding of life; one which is characterised by paradigms relating to the rationale of human existence in addition to the physical and metaphysical laws governing within. This sort of ideas can be seen in Cheng Chung-ying’s appreciation of Confucianism. Cheng’s unique approach is “methodologically more philosophical oriented.” He states that “this philosophical orientation wishes to make Confucianism not only humanistic but also cosmological in the evolution of men, so that men is supposed to embody the creative force of self-making.”103 He believes Confucian ethics and virtues are shown through interactions which are based on the emergence of a sort of reciprocity between the self and the persons or things external to the self. He sees Confucian ethics as internal-istic and also external-istic, meaning that they are interactional, asserting that through interactions, one can “come to an internal virtue” and humanness through self-understanding and self-cultivation to reduce the interaction-reciprocity gap that is widening amidst people. Thus, Cheng emphasises the significance of roles and insists that people should recognise differences among others through care, love, respect, and a sense of righteousness.104 One of the most cherished Confucian values for Cheng is filial piety. He states that China has gone through many changes since he left the country, but he insists that “for many intellectual families where Confucianism is a source of life-values—or core values or very human behaviour—people do expect that you conduct yourself as a good son, a good brother, a good student, a good citizen, and a good person.”105 Cheng thinks filial piety is fundamental in the growth and development of a person because starting from familial interactions one begins to develop a profound understanding of how people relate to each other:

Confucianism is very natural to your personal growth and bringing up because you are a member of a family, and you have to trust your parents are treating you well. They care for you and wish to give you education, they also hope you be a good citizen and do great things for your own people and for the world. Now, I want to stress this. There is an aspect of Confucianism which is not simply limited to the roles when we naturally enjoy or play in our relations with other people near and far, but also there is the aspect that simply want you to become a good human person.106

Cheng suggests family relations and filial piety are indispensable for being a good person. He states that a good human person is someone that cares for others and who respects them regardless of who they are or where they come from. Distressing others should be avoided, as we share similar feelings in our heart-mind, and selfish desires should be controlled by taking others into consideration. According to Cheng, respect, honourable conduct, and good relationships are expected if one wants to be viewed as an exemplary person.107

103 Cheng, “Interview.” 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid.

110 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Cheng’s formulation of Confucianism is a rational and reflective way of using his own experience to help stress the importance of Confucianism in terms of interactions among people to bring out the potential for growth. He believes Confucianism can be democratic, organic, self-motivated, and fulfilling and that the traditional imperial forms should be abandoned. Instead, he believes that people should seek guidance from the original insights of Confucius so that these can be applied today. For example, Cheng states that Mou Zongsan was an open and “vitalistic” Confucian; meaning that if you want to do things, you must do things right and in an engaging manner. He thinks that recognising, acknowledging, and going back to original Confucianism (i.e. yuanru 原儒, yuanshi rujia 原始儒家) means to participate in the public sphere and in the government to use personal talent and benevolence as the force and basis for humanity and to encourage humaneness.108 Using the classics to develop his thought, Cheng does not only argue for or against certain concepts. He also wants to engage in the philosophical structures that can be used as expressions of these in order to make them modern and contemporary—in a less traditional way as compared to the first and second generations of New Confucians. From Cheng’s vision, practicing and encouraging the five constant virtues will make people become morally right. Through humaneness and self-cultivation, a refined community of people will engender and benefit all. Cheng believes the purpose of the government is greater than just providing basic needs. It must offer good education, so society will grow intellectually and become morally sophisticated. His Confucianism is quite open and covers , ontology, and, at times, spirituality.109 Thus, it provides a more holistic vision of the tradition. The concept of the self is understood differently in Confucian and Western thoughts. On the one hand, the Confucian underpinnings of self-making or person-making entail moral and intellectual strengths that can only be weakened by indulging in self-centred behaviours. The five constant Confucian virtues do not permit moral goodness and ethical comportments to go unnoticed. They promote compassion and sympathy, justice and uprightness, to conventionally accepted norms, good judgement, and honesty. Modern and pre-modern Western values, on the other hand, are mainly rooted to liberalism (and Christianity). Liberalism offers freedom, liberty, opportunity, equal rights, and security to people encouraging individuals to pursue their own happiness and to take responsibility of their own actions. Roger T. Ames believes the values espoused by Western liberalism are undoubtedly causing perplexities to existing human conditions such as individual comportments, social organisation, and policy implementation. As a classicist, Ames is interested in making relevant Chinese traditional culture to bring about social consciousness for contemporary issues. His efforts to promote Confucianism as a values system that can replace some modern tendencies are explained as follows:

Confucianism is not the answer of the world’s problems today, but I believe that we live in a time that is dominated by an ideology of individualism. Individualism, in its time, was liberating the idea of serfs, aristocrats, and so on, but individual is a fiction—there is no such a thing as individual. Everything that we do, we do transactionally, we do in

108 Ibid. 109 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 111

associated patterns of living. Today, individualism has become an ideology because of people who live in a liberal world, or the urban elites in a non-liberal world, all buy into liberal values: , freedom, equality, . I think that these values have very real limitations. I do not think that autonomy is negative freedom or being able to do whatever you want to do. I think that the Confucian tradition—in its relationally constituted, radically embedded, radically embodied role ethic—presents us and offers us a robust nuance and sophisticated alternative to individualism, and I think that we needed it. The kinds of problems that we face as a world population today are no longer problems that can be addressed by individual actors winning and losing.110

Ames does not only believe Confucianism can serve as an alternative to individualism or other tendencies under the lens of liberalism, he also thinks it is necessary to embrace and learn about Confucianism in order to promote mutual understanding between Eastern and Western cultures. He says that “we have to allow this tradition to speak for itself” and insists that Confucianism should not be understood or framed upon the Western image and conceptual structure presented by the first missionaries to China—something he thinks many of his Western colleagues fail to properly appreciate. 111 His methodology is grounded upon the desire to understand Confucianism by means of its origins:

My effort has been to go back and to understand the terminology of the tradition and try to allow that tradition to speak on its own terms as it were. I see myself as being importantly different from my Western colleagues, and were I not to be criticised by them, then I would not be doing my job well enough. There are people who would say that my interpretation of Confucianism is radical, creative, but I would say that people who transport one cultural tradition and plant it into another are radical in the sense of uprooting it. Radical means root, and I would say that I am conservative in trying to allow the tradition to speak for itself.112

Ames’ intention is to stimulate a less biased understanding of Confucianism among non- Chinese speaking communities. His works enunciate the contemporary relevance of the tradition and what he believes it stands for today. Even though some of his interpretations are criticised by Western and Chinese academics, he has done remarkable scholarly investigations, and he is constantly placing an emphasis on the need to build concrete relationships among civilisations, especially Western and Confucian, in order to bring about mutual understanding and to fill the moral and ethical vacuum that societies experience nowadays. Ames takes Confucianism as an open and provisional set of ideas because “it is a hermeneutical tradition that changes in the face of a changing world.”113 Another scholar who looks at the Confucian tradition from its origins is Li Chenyang. Li claims one of the best ways to inhabit the resourcefulness of the tradition is to question and investigate the earlier entrenchments of classical Confucianism (i.e. through the Analects, the

110 Ames, “Interview.” 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid.

112 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Mencius, and the Xunzi) and to focus on any viable discursive traces found in the classics. Li asserts that his way of bringing Confucian resources into effective dialogue is not so influenced by Neo-Confucianism or New Confucianism; he mainly reads and uses texts from the classical period and links them to Rorty’s pragmatism, thereby establishing his own approach to the tradition.114 Li believes the combination of his own experiences and philosophical training in the West ultimately defines the way he engages with Confucianism:

On the one hand, I am different from my friends back in China who mostly do not have this kind of Western training. Some have it, but not as much. Teaching and living in the United States for twenty-six years also has a part in the way who I am, what I am. On the other hand, my experience growing up in a village in China also, perhaps, makes me different from my contemporaries, including people like Sor-hoon Tan and Roger Ames, so I feel I have this personal cultural connection there, even more so than my friends from China.115

According to Li, these are the kind of things that define or characterise the way he is and how his thought developed. Li focused on German during his master’s degree, spent one year at Pennsylvania State University doing European and then transferred to the University of Connecticut to learn analytical philosophy. Finally, towards the end of his time in Connecticut, he went to Leuven University in Belgium to hone his previous learning of continental philosophy. This training led Li to formulate an appreciation for comparative philosophy. His work is very much comparative, and he states that it is a part of him, that it is in his blood; thus, he is unable to conduct any sort of research without a comparative perspective or approach.116 Li’s own orientation towards Confucianism is similar to that of Roger Ames and Sor-hoon Tan, but, unlike them, he is more inclined to Rorty’s pragmatism rather than that of John Dewey. His discourse often advocates a contemporary pragmatisation of the Confucian tradition:

I do believe Confucianism still has a lot to offer in contemporary society. I do not think it should be treated as a piece in a cultural museum, and the question of course is: “How to give Confucianism a life in contemporary society again?” We are very different from the time Confucianism was initially constructed or developed and that is the challenge.117

Li rejects the idea of treating Confucianism as an extinct, dead tradition or philosophy.118 Sympathisers of the Confucian tradition would agree with Li in the sense that it is a challenging task to reinvigorate the tradition today. It is not easy to pragmatise Confucianism in our time

114 Li, “Interview.” 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid. 118 Chinese history expert Joseph R. Levenson once wrote that Confucianism had been retired into the silence of the museum and extracted from the reality of China by the Communists. See Joseph R. Levenson, Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: Volume III the Problem of Historical Significance (Routledge, 1965), 79; Joseph R. Levenson, Liang Ch’i-Ch’ao and the Mind of Modern China (University of California Press, 1959), 84.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 113 and epoch—especially if one envisages it as an alternative to current political systems or modern modes of governance. Li is currently working on a book called The Comparative Age; the introduction can be found in a volume published by the China Social Sciences Press as an article. Making Confucianism relevant to people outside Chinese philosophy is a difficult task, but Li uses an analytical angle to deal with ethics and from Western and non-Western perspectives without prioritising one before the other in order to present Confucianism on the world stage. In recent years, much of Li’s works focus on the Confucian concept of harmony. He says, “Harmony is more than just social and ethical in Confucian tradition, much broader, so I interpret it as a kind of comprehensive notion in Confucianism and that goes to not only personal harmony, family harmony, social harmony, but harmony at the metaphysical level, cosmological level.”119 In The Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (2014), Li stresses that harmony is a central concept but not the central concept of Confucianism.120 While some scholars may agree or disagree with Li’s approach to harmony, he simply claims that this concept is a fundamental and comprehensive notion to the tradition.

Gongfu and the Art of Living

Distinguished from his contemporaries for using the gongfu 功夫 approach, Ni Peimin does comparative philosophy and has written several works justifying how gongfu is a great resource to dive into Chinese philosophy. “Through the lens of gongfu perspective,” writes Ni, “one shall further realize that as a way of gongfu, Confucius’s teachings are ultimately aimed not at setting up moral rules to constrain people, but rather at providing guidance to enable people to live good, artistic lives.”121 He then explains that our contemporary conception of morality is too narrow, so it prevents us from truly understand the aim of the Master.122 Confucianism is typically viewed as a philosophy or set of doctrines and not as an art, but by taking gongfu as “the art of life” or “the art of living”, one can sympathise with Ni’s observation of Confucianism being more aesthetic than moralist: “The gongfu orientation suggests that the common conception of Confucianism as a system of moral doctrines is a gross oversimplification and misinterpretation. Moral norms stipulate responsibilities, but gongfu is the art of living.”123 Ni believes that moral norms constrain people and are often imposed; gongfu, on the contrary, does not constrain but guides and recommends people on how to live better. Ni was inspired by the Neo-Confucian use of the term gongfu; this is how they characterised their learning of Confucianism. He states that gongfu “is a wonderful term that can capture the spirit and unique feature of not only Confucianism but of all Chinese intellectual traditions because gongfu is art in general.” He continues, “We can define gongfu as the art of life because

119 Li, “Interview.” 120 Chenyang Li, The Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (Routledge, 2014), 18-20. 121 Peimin Ni, Confucius: The Man and the Way of Gongfu (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), xiii. 122 Ibid. 123 Peimin Ni, “Gongfu Method in the Analects and its Significance Beyond,” in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, ed. Sor-hoon Tan (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 133.

114 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM it can be applied to all kinds of arts, not just martial arts but also the art of speech, the art of governing, the art of dance, and the art of writing.”124 For nearly two decades, Ni has been using the gongfu approach; most of his writings revolve around this concept. He uses this approach to interpret Confucianism and Western philosophy. Interpreting philosophy is a sophisticated task of analysing and using terms, concepts, or notions that can give meaning to what philosophers try to convey. It is common that texts or ideas are criticised because of how they are interpreted and at times using a specific approach may become problematic or inadequate to some. For example, many Chinese scholars criticise the fact that some Western scholars use Western philosophical terms to try to understand Chinese philosophy. Ni, conversely, does the opposite. He uses a Chinese concept to try to understand or interpret Western philosophy:

One unique feature of gongfu is that it does not focus on finding the truth; instead, it is mainly about the art of life as the term itself suggests. So, by using a Chinese term, the term of gongfu, to look at Western philosophy, we can discover new features, discover features of Western philosophy that are not easily perceived within the Western framework and that can inspire us about how to contribute to the development of Western philosophy. I am not trying to separate entirely the matter about truth and the matter about arts. On the one hand, by looking at Western philosophy from gongfu perspective, we can see things, as I said, that are not easily realised within the Western framework. So, this, indeed, has something to do with truth, with reality, with finding out what Western philosophy is. On the other hand, by such an approach we can help Western philosophy to develop.125

Ni suggests that by using the gongfu approach, the logical argumentations of Western (and non-Western) philosophy could be more easily manifested. From this perspective, using gongfu can lead towards developing more comprehensive notions that can integrate Chinese and Western philosophical outlooks to generate harmonious debates and discussions.

Repoliticising Aspects of Confucianism

Going back to some of the perplexities caused by Western inclinations, Stephen C. Angle, Bai Tongdong, Daniel A. Bell, and Sungmoon Kim raise issues of contemporary political incertitude then ponder on aspects of Confucian political philosophy to present their ideas and interpretations longing to overcome today’s political problems. Angle, for example, takes the teachings of Neo-Confucian scholars to establish stimulating dialogues with contemporary Western philosophy. Although Confucianism, as it stands right now, does not have all the answers, Angle thinks Neo-Confucian philosophy can have much influence in global philosophy through “constructive engagements” with other traditions.126

124 Ni, “Interview.” 125 Ibid. 126 Angle, Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy, 6-7.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 115

Angle writes as a Confucian philosopher and engages Confucianism as a live tradition. He thinks this is pretty unusual because there is something special in the kind of rootedness found within Neo-Confucianism (and the Confucian tradition more broadly) rather than just looking at the classical period.127 His approach is not so much influenced by the kind of Kantian interpretation found in twentieth-century Confucianism—as seen in the works of scholars like Lee Ming-huei or other students or disciples of Mou Zongsan. Although Angle finds a lot of inspiration in Mou’s work and the political philosophies of New Confucians, his approach is more inclined to revitalise Confucianism as a living tradition through ritual propriety and virtue in a way that it can be blended with modernity. Certainly, the ideas of Mou Zongsan and other twentieth-century New Confucians have had much influence on contemporary overseas scholars. Bai Tongdong points out that Mou and his followers pay attention to moral metaphysics, ethics, and personal conduct rather than political philosophy and the institutional changes that can be proposed to get rid of the ills and evils of liberal democracy. 128 He is not implying that liberal democracy is fully or structurally problematic. For example, Bai, like Daniel A. Bell, is not against the one person, one vote system, but he believes it is not the only source of political legitimacy nor is it the best way of choosing legislators. In its place, Bai suggests having the one person, one vote system in addition to something else to balance the popular will and bring about a clear structure; a sort of structure tinkering in and out of the peripheries. His method may align well with other scholars, but his approach is still not the same. Bai’s discourse is focused on the ancient classics, and the ideas of compassion and equality-based hierarchy found in Confucianism. According to Bai, compassion is hierarchical. People are more compassionate to those closer to the self, so if people are equated to nation-states, countries are likely to first look after their interests and those of their society and then guard those of its closest neighbours or allies. Another part of Bai’s thought is that equality-based hierarchy at the institutional level should have branches: one representative of the people, one recognising the meritocratic achievements of leaders, and one based on policy-making. The first one measures whether people are happy with the present government; the second represents the morally, intellectually, and politically superior; and the third focuses on the policies and laws that interconnect the first two.129 These can assist in forming a sort of compassionate state-unity or bond where culture plays a role, and because (in this context) compassion is hierarchical, it will be erroneous to measure it as something that can extend equally to others and beyond the state. Therefore, looking at compassion and shaping equality-based hierarchies, Confucianism could offer a middle ground. The debates on how Confucianism should be revived or implemented are ample, especially when it comes to its political constituents. Daniel A. Bell’s views on Chinese politics appear to be conventional in China, but people in the West regard him as a non-mainstream political thinker. For Bell, discourse in the West “is still pretty much centred on democracy as the standard for evaluating good and bad governments and also the standard for thinking about such an allure.”130 Of course, not everybody in China is sympathetic to Bell’s ideas; there are liberals who may not agree with his criticism of electoral democracy, while some of the leftists

127 Angle, “Interview.” 128 Bai, “Interview.” 129 Ibid. 130 Bell, “Interview.”

116 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM would strictly oppose many of his views. Bell believes that, perhaps, one day the Chinese Communist Party will be relabelled as the Chinese Confucian Party.131 This belief was severely criticised, but such controversial statement has made him even more popular. He also thinks there are Chinese and Western intellectuals who, respectively, think Confucianism and liberal norms represent two kinds of universalisms. But while some may or may not agree with his views, Bell thinks any theory needs to be contextual, and it is supposed be realistic and sensitive to what people actually think.132 Bell has made political meritocracy one of his main topics of discussion, and he tries to make Confucianism an attractive tradition that could establish better political reforms. The idea of meritocratic rule in China dates back to pre-Qin times. In Chinese, the notion of shangxian 尚賢 (exalt the worthy) is concomitant to meritocracy. The educated and exemplary persons of the time had the privilege of seeking a role in government and were expected to fulfil political roles. Some scholars and critics believe Bell is trying to “abolish democracy and replace it by Chinese meritocracy,” but he is clearly not doing this. 133 Even though Bell’s ideas are controversial and often criticised from both ends (Western and Chinese), he thinks that the democratic foundation of the West should build upon meritocracy. Bell states that meritocratic practices can enhance democratic practices, and it should be recognised that it may act as a morally justifiable alternative.134 Confucian meritocracy and Western democracy combined lead to some sort of pluralism. Political pluralism is concerned with power distribution and allows different political systems to coexist in order to benefit from a number of practices endorsed by each one. From a positivistic perspective, pluralism promotes tolerance so that conflicts between or among societies that may have different beliefs, practices, or customs will lessen, and it also aims to create synergistic collaborations between the government and the people. For Sungmoon Kim, there are two ways to think about modern Confucianism: firstly, through the lens of Westerners or non-East Asians who are inspired by or attracted to an unfamiliar tradition for one or more reasons; and secondly, from the East Asian perspective or people who belong to Confucian civilisations. Kim says that for East Asians, Confucianism is part of them already (a vision shared with Ji Zhe and other culturally Confucian scholars), irrespective of whether positive or negative aspects can be found within; those belonging to Confucian civilisations are under huge pressure to adapt to radically different democratic and pluralistic environments. Kim observes that “pluralism is at the core of modern civil society, but the empirical political scientists’ understanding of pluralism as plurality of material interest is significantly limited.”135 He argues that the democratic system is effective in coordinating social interactions and that having democratic institutions is important; and that even so, these do have to be adapted to the East Asian context, which is very much grounded in Confucianism.

131 See Daniel A. Bell, “The Confucian Party,” The New York Times, May 11, 2009; Daniel A. Bell, “The Chinese Confucian Party?,” The Globe and Mail, February 19, 2010; Daniel A. Bell, China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton University Press, 2008), 12. 132 Bell, “Interview.” 133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Sungmoon Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 101-02.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 117

Part of Kim’s academic goals is to take the teachings of Confucius and Mencius and to create a productive engagement with pluralism and rights to integrate ancient politico- philosophical principles with modernity. Nevertheless, the differences in discourses and objectives among him and his peers sometimes lead to misunderstandings about the nature of each scholar’s works. He wants to address the functional significance of this engagement without focusing on the Chinese system or current law, per se, and separates himself from other scholars who also conduct research on Confucian democracy. One question Kim poses to himself is, “How can I help my citizens or citizens in East Asia operate their democratic system better without forfeiting their cultural identity?”136 His aim as a political theorist is to address this issue to other academic professional intellectuals, but more importantly, to focus on his principal audience: the East Asians. Kim wants to make relevant his theories to citizens in East Asia rather than solely engaging in academic dialogues with other scholars. He thinks scholars tend to forget the broader audiences and only focus on discussing their own and different understandings of Confucianism. Kim wants to make his theories directly relevant to the East Asian’s self-understanding of the tradition and social life and see if they can accept it as a plausible modern political option rather than solely embracing imported political systems (e.g. Marxism and liberal democracy). Kim argues his focus is different to other scholars because he first sees himself as a democratic theorist and then theorises Confucian democracy in the Confucian context; conversely, he states that other scholars first see themselves as Confucian scholars and “then they embrace democracy as one of the components of their New Confucianism.”137 To reiterate, his idea is to come up with a political alternative that can resonate with Korean, Chinese, or Taiwanese people in such a way that they do not think of Confucianism as an entirely archaic tradition. Kim wants to demonstrate that “Confucianism can be reconnected to recent sophisticated political theories, and it can be very attractable and realistically applicable political idea.”138 Kim is not overly concerned whether his ideas are accepted by professional intellectuals or not. Although he admits it is important they accept his ideas, his main objective is to present an alternative that is attractive to the citizens of East Asian countries.139 Kim’s pragmatic vision is what many scholars aim to achieve in their works. Unfortunately, as pointed out in Chapter 1, many scholars are more concerned with whether their ideas are accepted amidst academic circles or whether their theories are sound and tenable in principle, even if they are not applicable. Kim’s objective is to present alternatives to liberalism that can be seriously considered by the public. Although most of his works are published by academic presses, Kim states that he is open-ended and that neither his theories nor certain political judgements or social standards should be blindly accepted.140 Cultural identity is an important characteristic of modern nation-states, and (re)defining it has a lot to do with the way societies are organised. Today, liberalism is widely accepted as a normative-standardised political doctrine or philosophy, but using Confucianism as a non- anachronistic, feasible political procedure that can systematically complement the status quo

136 Kim, “Interview.” 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid.

118 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM of East Asia (and subsequently other nations) can help to bring about moral and political equilibrium that is required to dissuade dysfunctional societies.

Historical Shifts of the Tradition

The Confucian tradition has been in constant development over time, and its evolution is grounded on the interpretations of experts in the field. John Makeham, for instance, investigates “the way that Chinese philosophy has developed over time into a set of traditions.” He is interested “in the way that ideas get created and passed on, transformed or not transformed, how they relate to one another, and how systems can cope with these ideas.”141 By going back to the origins of Confucianism, Buddhism, or Daoism, Makeham does some genealogical investigations to enable an understanding of the developments and transformations of these traditions. His engagement with Chinese intellectual history and philosophy is partly due to the aesthetic dimensions of the classical Chinese language, which arguably, according to Makeham, cannot be found in other languages. Makeham finds an aesthetic reward—in addition to the intellectual engagement he obtains—when doing Chinese philosophy in classical Chinese. He conducts research for the sake of personal reward, to satisfy his own intellectual curiosity as a private enterprise; not for others or for contributing to the betterment of society. 142 This, however, has a broader purpose which Makeham is not himself committedly aiming for: the value of his research is, nevertheless, of value to others, and it helps people understand the Chinese past from different perspectives showing its relevance as well as its continuous evolution. He says, “Having a better understanding of the Chinese past we can understand how the trajectory of twentieth-century China and twenty-first century China is unfolding and where it might go.”143 Unlike other scholars who see themselves writing as Confucians or Confucian philosophers aiming to contribute to the betterment of society, Makeham seems more bounded to his personal interests as a researcher and has a more sceptical approach to Chinese philosophy. He asserts he is more cynical and critical and certainly not as sympathetic to Chinese philosophy as many of his colleagues or contemporaries who tend to be advocates or propagators of Confucian ideas. Although he thinks the ideas or system of ideas behind Chinese philosophy and the Confucian tradition are interesting, for him, this is solely an object of study, an intellectual academic pursuit, and not a code, set of beliefs, or set of teachings that he applies to his own life and values.144 Moreover, examining the history of philosophies by way of a constructive philosophical view allows Philip J. Ivanhoe to transmit his own perceptions of Chinese philosophy. Whether he agrees or disagrees with some of the philosophical issues raised by ancient Chinese philosophers, Ivanhoe takes into consideration whatever he thinks is deserving of judicious examination. For example, he is interested in observing the individual’s interconnectedness with other people, creatures, and things since it is an empirical fact that human beings naturally

141 Makeham, “Interview.” 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 119 have empathy for one another and things around them, but it depends on us whether we want to embrace this connection or to alienate ourselves from it. No matter how rational this may sound, the fact is that some individuals distance themselves from people, creatures, and things that fail to comply with their customs or their own system of beliefs. Anything that seems extravagant or foreign to the experiences previously encountered by an individual may have a strong influence in the way people interact with others and with things. In addition to phenomenological experiences, feelings and thoughts also play an important role on the ways people perceive the world around them. Ivanhoe’s constructive philosophical view of Chinese philosophy explicitly looks at historical instances that are capable of speaking eloquently and influentially to contemporary religious, ethical, and socio-political eventualities. Ivanhoe claims to have two primary perspectives when it comes to distinguishing his approach from other scholars. First, he regards himself as a historian of philosophies. He wants to understand what kind of questions earlier Confucian philosophers have asked and then take these as a sort of conceptual apparatuses to understand how they interpreted the nature of the world and other things. Ivanhoe seeks to assess more religious-like beliefs than purely philosophical or secular ones. His second perspective is a constructive philosophical view. He maintains that there are plenty of philosophical statements or arguments that are subject to questioning; some of them he rejects, but other parts he finds remarkably insightful. One example Ivanhoe gives is the Neo-Confucian ideal of renzhe yi tiandi wanwu wei yiti 仁者以 天地萬物為一體. He says, “We are one with all of heaven and earth and the ten thousand creatures,” and that this metaphysically suggests that we care about each other and that everything is connected in apparent ways.145 Another scholar who investigates Chinese intellectual history and its transformations is Anne Cheng. In 2008, Cheng became the Chair of Intellectual History of China at Collège de France. She has given lectures in a wide variety of topics related to the modern revival of Confucianism and of its impact in China. Cheng is not quite optimistic about how the Chinese government uses Confucianism. She explains that the CCP has taken refuge in a discourse that they once tried to eliminate, and it is the same people in power, but now in their sixties, who are trying to bring back Confucianism as a source of Chinese identity.146 Her translation of the Analects from Chinese to French has allowed her to become truly familiar with the text. The possible and implicit relevance of the Analects today, among other Chinese philosophical texts, has permitted Cheng to develop a unique discourse that looks deeply into the tradition. She goes back to the Chinese texts aiming to demonstrate what is still relevant today. She does not limit herself to analysing the hermeneutics of these texts; she also tries to present Confucianism and Chinese intellectual history from a perspective where Westerners are able to become acquainted with Chinese history and thought and their implications today.

Lee Ming-huei’s Scepticism

145 Ivanhoe, “Interview.” 146 Anne Cheng, interview by Rogelio Leal, November 17, 2015, Paris, France.

120 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Based in Taiwan, Confucian scholar Lee Ming-huei sustains that his approach is pretty much like that of Mou Zongsan’s. Lee started to combine Kant and Confucianism to have a more in- depth understanding of both philosophies. Later, he not only expanded on Kant and but also took seriously the idea of phenomenology and started to conduct research on Korean Confucianism—two things Mou did not focus on. Lee combined Korean Confucianism with German philosophy and Chinese Confucianism. Initially, Lee studied Kant’s philosophy and Chinese Confucianism as these were related to Mou’s philosophical learning, and while studying in Germany, his dissertation centred on moral feelings in . According to Lee, in Korean Confucianism there was a debate for hundreds of years on si duan yu qi qing 四端與七情 (Four Principles and Seven Emotions)—one of the most important debates inside Korean Confucianism. He states that the Four Principles are just like Kant’s moral feelings: “qi qing is the equivalent to physical feelings, and si duan is moral feelings, just like Kant’s”147 Lee is somewhat sceptical of the type of scholarship undertaken by many contemporary scholars of Confucianism, as well as their intentions. For instance, he does not recognise Cheng Chung-ying as a New Confucian and states that Cheng is an opportunist. Lee argues that when Fang Keli 方克立 organised the modern New Confucian project in 1986, the earliest study did not include Cheng Chung-ying among the New Confucians. However, according to Lee, Cheng requested Fang to include him among the New Confucians because he considered himself to be one. When Lee heard this story, he thought: “How is it that Cheng Chung-ying is a New Confucian? This conduct is contrary to Confucianism.”148 Lee’s declaration is controversial, but if Cheng did demand Fang to include him as one of the New Confucians for the sake of being recognised as such, Lee is right in pointing out that this behaviour does in fact contrasts with what Confucianism exemplifies. Labelling scholars into generations or groups should not become a priority for scholars, this is something future generations will be responsible for. There are several other individuals that can be included in Lee’s scepticism. For example, Zheng Jiadong, now a Christian, was once regarded as one of the New Confucians but has unwillingly stepped out of the academic scene. Zheng is not committed anymore to scholarly research on Confucianism; this is partly due to the 2005 incident where he was imprisoned for counterfeiting documents and for smuggling women to the United States.149 Lee also feels troubled by scholars who label themselves as New Confucians or who declare themselves critical of the New Confucian tradition for the sake of popularity. For example, he thinks people like Lin Anwu or Bai Tongdong are not prime representatives of New Confucianism; and yet, because they are critical of the tradition or have gained the attention of a specific audience— in the case of Bai, Western audiences (on account of his English publications)—many people and scholars now pay attention to them. Moreover, Lee states that what John Makeham did in Lost Soul was more of a journalistic task rather than scholarly research. In the early 2000s, Makeham visited Lee and other scholars in Taiwan and China to write about contemporary Chinese academic Confucian discourse.

147 Lee, “Interview.” 148 Ibid. 149 For a brief recount of Zheng’s incident, see Ma Licheng, Leading Schools of Thought in Contemporary China (World Scientific, 2016), 190-93.

ASSESSING THE BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE SCHOLARS 121

Makeham devoted one chapter to Lin Anwu, but Lee believes this type of work is very speculative. Lee told Makeham it is nonsensical that Lin Anwu identified him (Lee) as an apologetic New Confucian (hujiao xin rujia 護教新儒家). In the case of Bai Tongdong, Lee states the fact that Bai has been criticised by Chinese scholars because of his background in natural sciences and, therefore, is unable to properly understand philosophy. For these and other reasons, Lee is somewhat sceptical of various scholars; including Western Sinologists. Lee is less apprehensive of scholars who try to bring about positive aspects of Confucianism in a holistic manner, of those who are more open and who do not take Confucianism to be exclusive to the Chinese—something that Bai Tongdong and others claim to do. Lee believes Confucianism belongs to the world and that this view should be accepted by everyone. For this reason, there is no need to look down on Korean Confucianism, Japanese Confucianism, or even Boston Confucianism.

Concluding Remarks

In order to understand the formation and development of contemporary overseas Confucianism, it is indispensable to assess the backgrounds and motivations of the scholars who produce and continuously shape the discourse. In this chapter, it was shown that each scholar had different motives to engage with the tradition. Some of them came across Confucianism initially through their cultural relationship with the tradition while others became interested in Confucianism, Chinese philosophy or Asian tradition at a later stage of their lives—mainly during their college years. It can be maintained that their influences, especially scholarly ones, along with some of their meaningful experiences, played a significant role in their choice of career, in the way they conduct research, and in how they interpret the Confucian classics and other related works. Moreover, most of these scholars are actively producing written works, in addition to imparting lectures or participating in conferences, to reach numerous audiences in and outside the field of Confucian studies or Chinese traditional philosophy. By doing this, they are engaging in a constant effort to circulate among many circles (e.g. academic, public, private) the relevance and significance of making Confucianism a living tradition. Educating people on the numerous aspects and features that lie behind Chinese philosophical traditions, is a way for them to demonstrate how important and essential these are in a contemporary sense. Therefore, this chapter also delivered the scholars’ particular views, methods, and aims in order to present a better or more holistic way of how Confucianism is being transformed in the twenty-first century. While it is important to understand what brought the scholars into the field of Confucian studies and Chinese philosophy, it is also important to see whether their views and interpretations can actually take a more pragmatic stance in years to come. Otherwise, if such efforts are merely kept as hypothetical, non-practical notions and philosophies, it will be a great impediment for the Confucian tradition to have any contemporary import. Hence, it would not be able step outside the walls of a museum or merely be regarded as a historical monument just like Joseph R. Levenson once revealed: “Confucianism became an object of intellectual inquiry

122 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

(instead of the condition of it), or else an object of emotional attachment, an historical monument, eliciting (instead of inculcating) a piety towards the past.”150 Taking the previous considerations of this chapter, the following chapter will focus on the challenges scholars have faced whilst interpreting Confucian texts; this in combination with how they have overcome such challenges in order to develop their own thought and ideas. In addition, certain aspects of the tradition concerning its latest developments after the Cultural Revolution, its contemporary relevance, and how it should be preserved will be presented from the perspective of the interviewed participants.

150 Levenson, Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: Volume III the Problem of Historical Significance.

CHAPTER 4

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM

Most contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism are confident that certain aspects of the Confucian tradition remain pertinent today. Throughout history, Confucianism has been able to endure many social and political challenges. The doctrinal wisdom found in this tradition enables it to adapt to different environments, and the twenty-first century will not be an exception. There will be many challenges in terms of developing it and putting it into practice, but with the present-day rise of China (alongside its continuous aspiration for economic growth, social stability, and political progress), borrowing from its own cultural traditions may provide a way for the nation to reposition itself as the renowned cultural centre it was in times past, as well as to redefine its cultural identity. Although Confucianism had a less prestigious and influential role in China for most of the twentieth century, it was subconsciously preserved at the social levels; and thus, it naturally endured in China and nearby territories. There are numerous claims in circulation regarding the set of norms and values found in Confucianism and about how they have a great deal to offer to today’s social, political, philosophical, and spiritual undertakings. Confucianism has undergone major changes since its founding, but many of its core principles still seem to be feasible today—and for many years to come. There are several components found in this tradition that are relevant to current global socio-political affairs and which can be used and applied by people in leadership positions in order to create or enable better living conditions for the populace. The values prescribed by Confucianism are not limited to a particular civilisation or epoch, and because of this, Confucianism has the potential to support and sustain prosperity among societies worldwide if used in favourable and effective ways. Integrating a Confucian model with contemporary social and political practices has the potential to create a positive, long-lasting effect for the future of global politics. Arguably, some Confucian principles are of universal validity, and they can be applied and adapted to a wide range of contexts in and outside Confucian civilisations. One way of understanding the modern relevance and praxis of Confucianism is through analysing the opinions and hermeneutical investigations of contemporary scholars of Confucianism. This tradition is more than just a philosophy. It is practical wisdom. But, in order for one to be able to grasp its wisdom, it demands that the individual morally cultivates the self, through practicing a set of (virtuous) behaviours. Unless the individual is willing to learn how to conduct him or herself as a proper human person (in the Confucian way), it will be difficult to attain the humanistic wisdom offered by this set of doctrines. Confucius placed great emphasis on ritual propriety and advised his disciples to exercise it constantly, yet many people in Confucian civilisations nowadays assume that these rituals are absurd, irrelevant, or outdated. As a result, contemporary Confucian scholars have the difficult

123

124 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM task of interpreting the Confucian classics, commentaries, and other texts in such a way that they can actually be understood by the modern human person. Confucian discourse has been in constant evolution as interpreters of the tradition have endeavoured to accommodate Confucianism to their existing state of affairs. In this chapter, we will learn about the challenges scholars have faced, or are currently facing, in the process of interpreting the classics and other Confucian texts. The importance to understand how Confucianism is currently perceived within academic circles and beyond will also be addressed to elucidate how the tradition has evolved in the past few decades, especially after it was (unexpectedly) reintroduced in China in the early 1980s. Moreover, since the modern revival of Confucianism plays a significant role in terms of how the tradition will be developed and what kind of socio-political impact it may furnish, the scholars’ views on the Confucian revival are addressed to clearly present whether the tradition is still relevant today and which of its aspects are more likely to be used or adopted. The last section of this chapter focuses what steps the academic community is taking to preserve the legacy of Confucius and which items of the tradition could or should be preserved and for what purposes.

Interpreting Confucian Texts: Challenges and Difficulties

In the narrow sense, Confucianism can be reduced to hermeneutics (i.e. the art and theory of interpretation, especially of texts). Confucius studied and edited canonical texts1 for the sake of bringing back historical conventions. He constantly sought ways to find meaning in things and events by studying and interpreting ancient scripts. He believed that solutions to the problems faced by individuals (and humankind more generally)—which then extend to social and political matters—were to be found in these texts. He proposed that people rigorously study them for them to excel as individuals and to exploit the perennial dao through self-cultivation. Therefore, it can be argued that the tradition arose from hermeneutics, out of textual interpretation. In principle, humans are in a natural state of existence. However, all undergo lived experiences, historical events, the conformity deriving from conventions, and interactions with others; all these separate humans from their natural state of being while strongly influencing the way people think and perceive the world. But to give meaning to these continuous conscious (and unconscious) phenomenological happenings, we need to take part in some hermeneutical investigations. One of the major challenges faced by most contemporary scholars of Confucianism is to interpret the intrinsic nature of the classics. Giving meaning to a text is demanding, especially if one is unable to conduct an ontological contemplation of the lived experiences of the author or authors whose writings are being examined. Thus, through the classical texts and commentaries, scholars formulate ideas of the happenings or events experienced by some of the central figures of earlier forms of Confucianism. It is impossible to fully comprehend the

1 Confucius is known for having edited the Chinese classics: the Book of Odes, the Book of History, the , the Book of Songs, the Book of Changes, and the .

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 125 minds of others, nor even one’s own mind, so anything that has been written by or about Confucians become elements that are subject to interpretation. For this reason, scholars must return to whatever has been said and written in order to make assumptions about what certain, specific utterances and statements might possibly signify. The time and epoch when they were written, or for what purpose(s) they were written, are also items that need to be considered. Interpreting texts is the starting point for understanding someone else’s cognitive processes in relation to the occurrences he or she experienced at the time of his or her life-existence.

The Language Problematic

When interpreting the Confucian classics, language appears to be the prime challenge for most scholars. These texts, and many of their commentaries, were written centuries ago in classical Chinese; therefore, scholars struggle to interpret and identify the context of the langue.2 There are certain particularities in the written styles and syntaxes of those texts that make it difficult for contemporary interpreters of the tradition to make sense of the collective knowledge addressed by early Confucian scholars. One interesting observation pointed out by Roger T. Ames is that Confucian scholarship has strengthened thanks to a whole new generation of scholars:

When I began to study Confucianism, Herrlee Creel was “Confucianism”, and it was really a thin, uninteresting understanding of Confucianism. It is certainly not me, but it is a whole generation, our generation of scholars, both Chinese and Westerners, that have really taken the Chinese tradition and revealed something that is much more interesting and important than what we were given when we began. So, the sophistication of our understanding of the tradition has grown exponentially.3

Ames has co-authored and written numerous books and articles concerning the roots of Confucianism. He has collaborated with other scholars to translate important Confucian classics such as the Zhongyong 中庸 with David L. Hall and the Analects with Henry Rosemont, Jr. These translations aim to present the knowledge, wisdom, and significance of these ancient philosophical texts to the English-reader. Ames and Hall’s preface to the Zhongyong reads: “We hope, however, that we have provided sufficient guidance to enable those unfamiliar with the Chinese language to gain a productive understanding of the distinctive challenges encountered in the effort to render Chinese thought in Western contexts.”4 The Zhongyong is deemed as one of the most philosophical texts of the Confucian canon, so before presenting their translation to the reader, the authors explain the relevance of the text, the problems they

2 In this specific context, langue is used in the Saussurean framework. That is to say, the knowledge understood and characterised by a community or group of people as a function in a given context at a specific period insofar as it is passively registered or acquired by the individual. 3 Roger T. Ames, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 27, 2015, Beijing, China. 4 Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, Focusing the Familiar: A Translation and Philosophical Interpretation of the Zhongyong (University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), xi.

126 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM faced when translating it, and identify the language, central argument, and key terms for a more sophisticated reading. In the translation of the Analects, Ames and Rosemont, Jr. provide a historical and textual background of their translation for the contemporary Western reader. This translation pays attention to “the world as experienced by the ancient Chinese” because, according to the translators, “classical Chinese should be seen more as an eventful language.”5 In other words, phenomena (in its broader philosophical sense) are central to understanding the significance and subtleness of the classical Chinese language that was used in ancient times. And this applies to our current language usage too. Our understanding of a specific word or phrase affects the way we perceive things or events. Hence, scholars find it difficult to interpret and translate classical Chinese on account of its dynamism. Philosophically speaking, ancient Chinese intellectuals saw the world in terms of constant change, a notion itself related to the yin-yang cosmology. They had a biantong 變通 (change and continuity) approach to life, meaning that their views and the way they used language was more pragmatic and thus more flexible and adaptable to different situations so that it was possible to accommodate it to the given circumstances. In other words, change and continuity were both important considerations here. As a result, it is hermeneutically problematic for the interpreter-translator to discuss the various different dimensions classical Chinese may have assumed in the past. Another obstacle pointed out by Ames is the dictionary. He explains: “The Chinese-Chinese dictionary is radically different from the Chinese-English dictionary; a Western world has been insinuated into the Western language dictionaries and China has been made into something that is not.”6 Hence, our understanding of China and Chinese philosophy has become equivocal. Nonetheless, Ames and some of his contemporaries are working to provide a more accurate account of China, Chinese philosophy, and Confucianism by using Chinese terms on the basis of what they originally meant. For instance, ren, yi, and li have been deliberately translated into different languages to familiarise the non-Chinese speaker/reader with their meaning, but these are often misinterpreted due to their non-native translation(s). Ames suggests we must learn what these terminologies originally stand for if we want to understand China today:

However we translate the terminologies, at the end of the day we have to learn what they are on their own. Wittgenstein says that the limits of our language are the limits of our world. So, in the Chinese case, if we are going to understand China, we need more language, so we are going have to know what ren means, we are going to have to know what yi means, we are going to have to stop translating tian as Heaven and then think about it as Heaven. That is our problem. Once we have translated it, then it becomes Heaven, and we know what “Heaven” means.7

Sometimes it is necessary to give meaning to Chinese terms to make them coherent to the non- Chinese speaker/reader, but translating a term should not be premised upon replacing it with

5 Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation (Ballantine Books, 2010), 20. 6 Ames, “Interview.” 7 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 127 another term that already constitutes a specific meaning in a different language. Ideally, the term should retain its meaning in keeping with its original or reconceptualised context. By conferring meaning to words, phrases, or ideas that have already been said or interpreted in the past, the Realproblematik of hermeneutics is something that emerges and cumulates whenever there is an intermingling of a variety of terms coming from different traditions.8 For instance, Ni Peimin has found multiple challenges when interpreting the classics. He observes there is “the distance between Chinese and Western languages and the distance between contemporary and classic languages.”9 This distance is so vast there is no specific formula or precise method to follow when discussing terms loaded with representations bestowed by different individuals. Requiring a lot of skill and determination, Ni underwent the laborious task of translating and interpreting the Analects of Confucius. He claims translators often “put too much of their own interpretation into their translation,” so by using the gongfu approach (discussed in Chapter 3), he tried to overcome this problem. 10 In his translation of the Analects, 11 Ni delivers a comprehensive view of the Analects by retaining its original ambiguity to “leave the door open for all different kinds of interpretations.”12 In addition, his annotations further inform the readers, so they can do their own interpretations thereby allowing room for a seemingly unbiased translation of this text. Moreover, the syntax of the classics is fettered to social and political settings that must be considered or understood before attempting to interpret them. These ancient philosophical texts have been naturally susceptible to numerous historical socio-political events. This, of course, has had a major impact on the evolution of how they have been interpreted, and what type of language was used. One important thing to consider is that one must understand the context in which the language has evolved. While language does correspond to certain given written or verbal modes of expression, it also reveals a dialogic chain of interpretations which is in itself an adequate tool for fully comprehending the intentions of the interlocutor. Therefore, the historicity of any given context is important when interpreting someone else’s verbal statements or written works, and rather than solely understanding the language independently, we must also understand the langue. The Australian scholar John Makeham thinks it is indispensable to recognise any broader contextual issues related to the institutions and socio-political frameworks of China’s history in order to render a better understanding of certain writings and their intended meaning. He states: “If you do not understand the political and social contexts of the text you are reading, then it is often very difficult to understand the text. So, you have to learn a lot about Chinese history, Chinese institutions, people, and the way governments work.”13 Makeham considers these to be the sort of broader contextual issues that have become his most significant challenges when interpreting the classics or any other texts associated with the Confucian tradition.

8 For an explanation on what is meant by Realproblematik of hermeneutics, see Chapter 2. 9 Peimin Ni, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 15, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States. 10 Ibid. 11 Peimin Ni, Understanding the Analects of Confucius: A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations (State University of New York Press, 2017). 12 Ni, “Interview.” 13 John Makeham, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 14, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/Australia.

128 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Language is also one of Makeham’s major challenges at the time of interpreting the classics. He says that “classical Chinese is something you never become fluent at, you are always learning. So, there is a challenge of building up a competent set of skills in being able to read texts in classical Chinese.”14 One of his recent works is an annotated translation of Xiong Shili’s New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness (2015). Xiong was a self-identified Confucian, so Makeham undertook the difficult task of translating a book on from Xiong’s Confucian perspective. Makeham encountered big challenges when translating this text since the objective and structural meaning of the language of Sinitic Buddhism must be gained through an understanding of Sanskrit, Hindi, and even Tibetan languages, in addition to having a broader background of Buddhism. Thus, much of Makeham’s research during this period was collaborative (i.e. working with experts in the field) for him to be able to provide an eloquent manuscript on such philosophical subjects. 15 Generally, it is indispensable for scholars to understand the background, terminology, and technicalities of the language(s) or the texts in order to render sophisticated interpretations and translations of them.

Time and the Complexity of Texts

While language is a major challenge, time is as important. Time is correlated to studying or learning the language, and learning a new language, or falling into the linguistic paradigms of interpreting or giving meaning to it, is a time-consuming task. It is necessary to spend some time figuring out the intended connotation of the utterance at the time it was originally said or written. Some scholars may not be thoroughly fluent in Asian languages, and many Western Sinologists are often criticised by Chinese scholars for their lack of language skills, but this does not imply that their interpretations are more or less valuable. Western educated scholars (Chinese or not) understand Confucianism in their own way, and their lived experiences, interactions with academic peers, and ways of conducting research also play a huge role on how they interpret, perceive, or practice it. Interpreting texts can be a difficult and laborious process. For instance, one of the greatest obstacles for Philip J. Ivanhoe when interpreting the classics is time. He thinks there is always more and more to learn when interpreting the Confucian texts, and, like Makeham, he believes textual interpretation is a set of skills that one develops with time. These skills must be nurtured through objectivity, thereby leaving aside any personal views that may hinder one from truly understanding what the texts are saying. With this approach, Ivanhoe tries to understand these texts in a way where his own ideas do not have much influence on what the text is meant to depict. He then uses that point of view to communicate his findings to others:

I think that I have learned a set of skills about what it is like to try to bracket my own views and try to just kind of sympathetically understand what these texts are saying to me…. So, I think that is a skill that you need to develop or else when you read an ancient

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 129

text, you are going to just read your own ideas into it. So, the ability to try to let to bracket your own ideas and try to really work through what the text has down there to lead you to see something different…, that ability to work through another point of view, again, is something, I think, that is a helpful general approach.16

To sympathetically understand what these texts are saying, by holding one’s own thoughts and ideas in abeyance, is an action which may well be the intention of many scholars who are interpreting the classics; this is only natural. However, to what extent is it really possible for anyone to openly set aside their own views and ideas while interpreting texts? Of course, there is a great difference between the intent and the act of doing it. So, Ivanhoe’s assertion of it being a matter of developing the skill does appear to be an accurate characterisation of the matter. Like Ivanhoe, one of the main difficulties for Umberto Bresciani when interpreting or reading the Confucian classics is to have an effective and fair understanding of the texts and to understand what exactly they are talking about. It took Bresciani several years to get to this point because of the complexity of the texts, the difference in language, and the time one needs to spend on them to thoroughly understand what they are saying. He explains: “When you read the classics, you hear people talking, but you have to grasp it in your mind.” Bresciani tries to identify what the text aims to convey using his own understanding of what the author has written, but he is faced with big obstacles: “When you read things that were written a thousand years ago, you understand the words. But, what they were really thinking, is difficult to get into, it takes time.”17 Making sense of ancient scriptures does constitute a major challenge for contemporary scholars; however, this kind of challenge has already been present for centuries. It does not matter whether traditional or simplified Chinese characters are used since the way of expressing ideas in the past include different terminologies and other expressions and articulations—all of which are no longer used as standard ways of capturing the meaning of a particular idea. Even first and second-generation New Confucians struggled while interpreting the classics, but their difficulties were less challenging because they were trained in wen yan wen 文言文 (Chinese literary language) when they were young. Therefore, these scholars succeeded in gaining an enhanced understanding of Chinese scriptures, and they were thus more likely to able to conduct better analyses on the linguistic usages of the Confucian classics.18 To illustrate the previous point, Lee Ming-huei can be taken as a contemporary example. Lee maintains that he does not encounter many difficulties when interpreting the classics because he spent a lot of time reading them at a very young age. He had the chance to avail of traditional teaching techniques and Chinese culture as part of the Guomindang’s educational agenda in Taiwan, so his exposure to this sort of education and environment have helped him gain a better understanding of what the classics were about. He claims to uphold a clear idea of what these texts entail, but even though he admits the obstacles were minimal, his only concern is that the material found in the classics is too vast:

16 Philip J. Ivanhoe, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 28, 2016, Hong Kong, China. 17 Umberto Bresciani, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 22, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan. 18 Ibid.

130 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

I did not feel that great of a challenge, the only challenge is that the Chinese classics are immense and the understanding you can get from them is very limited; I do not have so much time. For example, I am also very interested in Daoism, but I do not have time because Confucianism itself is a huge subject. It is a lifetime of endless research.19

Apart from Confucianism and Daoism, Lee is also attracted to Buddhism. Lee developed an interest in the three teachings (san jiao 三教) and Western philosophy and has dedicated much of his life to studying Chinese philosophy; nonetheless, like other scholars, he struggles to find time for studying. He does not conduct research on a particular Confucian scholar or epoch; his research is more focused on the tradition as a whole. Lee firmly believes the so-called three epochs of Confucianism are inseparable, and it is impossible to understand one without reference to the other: “A person cannot understand classical Confucianism but can understand Neo-Confucianism, that is impossible, and when you do not understand Neo-Confucianism, you cannot understand New Confucianism.”20 Another point Lee maintains is that Confucianism today should also be understood in a global context.21 Besides being a devoted Confucian scholar, he also conducts research on Western philosophy to make the scope of his interpretations broader: “I think that it is impossible to study the Confucian tradition in the twenty-first century without the reference background of the West. If we do not understand , Confucianism cannot be developed because we have to face Western culture, there is no other choice.”22 Confucian scholars such as Fang Keli or Jiang Qing would not sympathise with Lee’s assertion. They believe that because Confucianism emerged in China, it should only be understood from a Chinese contextual perspective; therefore, the less influence Confucianism has from other traditions, the more precise understanding or appreciation one can gain of what it actually is and of what it might actually be today as well. Lee says there is no hope to further develop Confucianism with this kind of mind-set. He adds that even scholars like Fang Keli, who have been influenced by Marxist ideas, or Jiang Qing, who was very much interested in Christianity but later became reluctant to admit it, have also been affected by Western thought.23 Comparative studies take a lot of time because one must be knowledgeable in two or more subjects in order to be able to make sense of them both inside and outside their own original context.

Usefulness and Practicality of the Texts and of the Tradition

19 Ming-huei Lee, interview by Rogelio Leal, September 29, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan. 20 Ibid. 21 This way of thinking is similar to that of Robert C. Neville who is interested in promoting “Global Confucians” and of other scholars such as Tu Wei-ming who promote the importance of Confucianism at a global scale. For more on Lee Ming-hui’s understanding of Confucianism in a global context, see Ming-huei Lee, Confucianism: Its Roots and Global Significance, ed. David Jones (University of Hawai‘i Press, 2017). 22 Lee, “Interview.” 23 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 131

In this field, there will always be linguistic challenges, and there will never be enough time to fully study the language nor to read every single text associated to the Confucian tradition. One common practice among contemporary scholars is the attempt to revive key terms found in the classics that have a common and shared validity. The aim is often to revitalise these as coherent expressions that can be used to govern the self and societies. Yet, since these Confucian concepts may risk undermining modern Western principles, which are often viewed as superior, their scope is weakened, and they are simply taken to be philosophically illustrious (even utopian) terms and ideas. Stephen C. Angle, a self-identified Confucian philosopher, is proficient in Chinese, and he is also able to work with Chinese texts. However, like many other scholars, he does wish his Mandarin skills were better. Angle believes that the necessity to find time for study is one that poses substantial difficulties as well as the linguistic challenges inherent to classical Chinese. Nonetheless, one of his main challenges is to give an ancient tradition contemporary significance. Angle is convinced “contemporary scholarship and contemporary attempts to further develop Confucianism” are of crucial significance when interpreting these texts. And, although he values the importance of being grounded in the old classics, in order to be taken seriously as an academic, he believes that many scholars place too much emphasis on just reading or interpreting them. 24 Consequently, they end up missing out on the overall significance they might have in a contemporary context. Angle believes it is important to reconsider the way Confucianism is viewed and interpreted in order to recognise its existing relevance:

‘Confucianism’ has been—and may continue to be, or become again—more than a philosophical tradition. It bears complicated relations to Chinese (and broader East Asian) cultural identity and political, religious, and spiritual practices. These are highly contested matters at the present moment, with no likelihood of a simple solution. It is important for philosophers to recognize these complexities, and not to claim to be able to solve every question related to the status of ‘contemporary Confucianism’ simply by looking at texts or making arguments.25

Having a strong foundation in both the language and the tradition can certainly help scholars to formulate better interpretations. However, in order for these to be of value, they still need to have some practical relevance to current socio-political affairs. Works or manuscripts having the essential character of the project undertaken here, which try to disclose the significance and relevance of contemporary research on Confucianism (or any other tradition), ought to be highly esteemed because they encourage people to look at the impact and outcomes of the individual discourses of scholars who are generally incorporating the best of old practices for modern use. It can be argued that the modern relevance of Confucianism lies in its practicality. Interpreting texts is already a challenging task; but to make them hermeneutically applicable is

24 Stephen C. Angle, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 11, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States. 25 Stephen C. Angle, Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2009), 225.

132 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM even more problematic. Ni Peimin thinks that the Confucian philosophy has insightful ideas which can help us solve contemporary socio-political problems and that “it will be a tragedy for philosophy if it is considered totally irrelevant to politics.” He hopes that today’s leaders can really appreciate the value of Confucianism and believes it can help us to cope with a lot of today’s problems, or even solve them.26 Thus, if leaders and people in power can appreciate its significance, its practical value may yet finally be fulfilled. Moreover, Li Chenyang is not overly concerned with the semantics of the classics. Yet, he is more apprehensive about their applicability:

I think one major challenge is what you think is still valuable and useful and what you think is dead. What we have to decide is what part of Confucianism is still viable as an ancient tradition and what part is no longer viable within the social changes we have today. Any tradition has to face that, and Confucianism particularly has to, at this time, figure that out. That is also the most controversial aspect of studying Confucianism because Confucian scholars disagree on that. In China, you will see all different schools trying to compete, and that is a healthy thing. So, in the end, through healthy debates and exchange of different opinions, hopefully, people will gradually come up with some consensus on that. Not entirely, but gradually, by large, they will come up with some ideas.27

For Li, the purpose of stimulating the development of Confucianism is to make a consistent evaluation of what can be used and to make sense of it in such a manner that any dominant concepts or ideas are finally able to serve as problem-solving tools. Li believes that the most controversial part of studying Confucianism lies in its application. If things evoked by Confucianism (such as the five constant virtues) are not put into practice and are not encouraged as viable means of balancing out worldly matters, these can simply fade away. Or else, they may simply be replaced by the unnatural and foolish attachments human beings have towards materialism and other equivalents. Ideally, certain moral and metaphysical elements of Confucianism should be nurtured and developed through self- cultivation; those things which, according to Mencius’ views on human nature, ought to be naturally expected from all human beings alike. Furthermore, Sungmoon Kim argues that the number of scholars actively engaged in the development of modern Confucianism as a political philosophy or theory is limited. For Kim, the biggest challenge he and his colleagues face when interpreting the Confucian texts is to attempt to recreate or reinvent the Confucian tradition. In Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (2014), Kim categorises scholars into different groups to convey a better understanding of who is working on what. One of the main objectives of this volume is to demonstrate that his version of Confucian democracy is indeed politically and socially relevant in East Asia. Liberal democracy already exists in an East Asian context, but “East Asians should attempt to Confucianize partially liberal and democratic regimes that currently exist.”28

26 Ni, “Interview.” 27 Chenyang Li, interview by Rogelio Leal, August 14, 2015, Singapore. 28 Sungmoon Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 10.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 133

Kim wants to put theory into practice, and the way this can be achieved is by understanding what other Confucian political theorists are writing about and by discerning what kinds of actions are reasonable points of departure from such; given how, nowadays, the notion of Confucian democracy is purely a philosophical construct.29 To provide a more comprehensive way of understanding the contemporary relevance of Confucian political philosophy, Kim groups scholars into communitarian, meritocratic, and pluralist scholars—placing himself in the latter. Through these sorts of categorisations, he claims that he and his contemporaries will actually know what each one is working on; in so doing, their discussions will “be much more productive and more sophisticated.”30 This is essentially one way of integrating and synthesising politicised forms of Confucianism (discussed at length in Chapter 5) to be able to compare and contrast the views and opinions of other scholars for the purpose of clarifying what kind of responses might help to resolve the kind of problems that naturally arise in modern socio-political contexts.

Continuity of Perceptions

As we have seen, several scholars consider the true value of Confucianism to lie in its contemporary application. This disposition is noteworthy in contemporary Confucian discourse, and it presents an opportunity for scholars to delve into the abundant richness of the tradition to encourage positive relationships among the people; as also between society and the government. This helps provide an opportunity to transcend both egotistic behaviours and despotic governance. There is little agreement on the specifics among overseas and other scholars regarding the practicality of Confucianism; however, these experts are still making serious efforts to explain, in their own terms (i.e. by using a singular discourse), the logic and rationale found in Confucian texts as well as in its overall manifestation (i.e. with the broader context of the aggregate discourse). This way, as pointed out by Li Chenyang, healthy dialogues and debates will be produced, and it is not only experts who will benefit from these. The non-expert can also recur to these discussions to better understand the kind of things Confucianism can resolve today. It is difficult for the non-expert to capture the logic and rationale behind the Confucian classics and other Confucian texts. Many of the linguistic elements found in these texts happen to be excessively simplistic, yet their simplicity could end up being more profound or philosophical than anyone could possibly imagine. As a result, the interpretations of scholars do vary, and this leads to some compelling debates on how to systematically analyse specific terms or ideas and also whether these are applicable or not. This then becomes a challenge for many scholars because they try to take some of these teachings and apply them in an environment where they are not necessarily welcomed due to the tensions or imbalances they may cause if implemented. In addition, subjective experiences have a significant influence on the way texts are understood. Preconceived information, events, ideas, and many other physical and

29 Ibid., 7-10. 30 Sungmoon Kim, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 26, 2016, Hong Kong, China.

134 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM metaphysical elements do affect the attempts scholars are making to conduct their, presumably, objective textual interpretations. Arguably, it is impossible to conduct unbiased textual interpretations. On the one hand, the perplexities of hermeneutic thinking do not allow the interpreter to acknowledge the meaning of a text from a purely objective position. On the other hand, the text itself (the one that is being interpreted) is already an account of hermeneutic phenomenology—i.e. the process of interpreting texts and the world based on perceptions. The re-introduction of Confucianism in mainland China has allowed for it to be more widely examined. However, interpreting the Confucian classics or other works on Confucianism has its limitations. Contemporary scholars present a unique set of problems, and there are multiple factors that restrain them to thoroughly assess Confucian texts. Nevertheless, most scholars aim to present the socio-political and cultural usefulness of the tradition: politically, it inculcates good governance; socially, it develops people’s proper comportment; and culturally, it becomes a source to redefine Chinese cultural identity. China has the potential to flourish as an engaged society that is willing to be part of a global community while simultaneously extolling the great virtues that are found in its own cultural heritage. Many scholars prefer to focus on the philosophical aspects of the tradition, but Confucianism itself is inseparable from social and political affairs. As is revealed in the next section, the development of Confucian discourse after the Cultural Revolution clearly demonstrates the interest many scholars have in terms of making Confucianism available to others. Rather than merely interpreting or philosophising upon a range of spheres, on the basis of what the tradition can offer in contemporary times, their actions are heavily motivated towards establishing and exalting certain social and political forms of the tradition.

Development of post-Cultural Revolution Confucian Discourse

Although Confucian discourse has rapidly evolved in recent years, the tradition cannot prosper as an isolated doctrine. For it to develop today, it needs to take into account the social, political, economic, environmental, cultural, educational, and philosophical propensities of the global community, especially Western ones. If Confucianism is circumscribed to East Asia, the opportunities for advancing and developing the tradition will lessen. In order to develop and revitalise the tradition today, non-Confucian elements must be taken into account. After the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), the re-introduction of Confucian scholarship in Chinese academia enabled interesting debates and discussions on its value and usefulness. Li Chenyang notes that since then, scholars of Confucianism have a lot more confidence in the tradition:

They think that it is still viable, that it is not dying. This is in part associated with the rise of China and in part just because of the multi-cultural sentiment in the West. They are more confident into saying, “We will have a future!” It is not just pure academic, pure

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 135

scholarly interest anymore for most of us. Even though probably we are still more scholarly, more academic than many other people, but it is no longer mirrored in that.31

The fact that Confucian scholars and enthusiasts in China could conduct research and hold open discussions on Confucianism after the Cultural Revolution changed the way the Chinese viewed their own traditions. With the rise of China, societies worldwide are seeking to better understand the Asian giant. While the Chinese are becoming more aware of their own cultural heritage and the non-Chinese of its significance, contemporary Confucian discourse is providing both sides with the necessary components for appreciating its own intrinsic viability. Unlike contemporary scholars, previous generations of Confucian scholars were not as informed about Western philosophy or only had a very rough conception of it. Scholars today have more confidence in making Confucianism a concrete socio-political philosophy that is capable of tackling current realities. Their discourses are more likely to be pragmatic because they have had better training in Western philosophy and other fields and because the study of the Confucian tradition has now become a permissible pursuit in Chinese academia. The “Confucian comeback” has a lot to do with the current rise of China. Bai Tongdong argues that this tendency emerged after the anti-traditionalist movement during the Cultural Revolution, but when China was not thriving, when it had a weak military, and when it was not economically and politically strong, most of the Chinese people were naturally apprehensive of their own traditions. However, now that the country is becoming more powerful, people worldwide are starting to see the many positive aspects of Confucianism and Chinese traditions more generally.32 Bai believes that people think there may be something good about Confucianism, so Westerners who are interested in finding out what the tradition is all about—particularly from a political perspective—are willing to listen to his ideas. He states that there is a “rise of decline of the West, especially Europe, so Europeans and Americans are now looking for alternatives, and where else to look for alternatives than a rising country?” Conversely, if China was not performing economically well today, no matter how great or reasonable his ideas are, very few people will listen to him. In a good-humouredly manner, he says: “For the sake of Confucianism, I ‘pray’ every day for the continuous rise of the Chinese economy.”33 It is certainly true that with the rise of China—prompted by socio- economic reforms during Deng Xiaoping’s 鄧小平 rule from 1978 until his retirement in 1989—Confucian discourse is being more widely recognised. Many contemporary scholars try to prove that Confucianism can provide constructive outcomes in today’s world. That is, contemporary Confucian discourse is supplementing previous interpretations of the tradition, and the moral principles found in the classics, commentaries, and modern scholarship could yet be sensibly implemented to ensure the future prosperity of societies. But the question is, how? Now that China is a powerful nation-state, it is able to exploit and use its own cultural heritage in order to exhaust the strengths and efficacies present in Confucianism. There are,

31 Li, “Interview.” 32 Tongdong Bai, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 27, 2015, Beijing, China. 33 Ibid.

136 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM nevertheless, many ideas found in the tradition that do not apply or relate to today’s problems; even so, most of the contemporary scholarship on Confucianism does suggest some attractive methods for adapting it in useful and progressive ways. Societies worldwide are searching for answers or alternatives to ordinary issues, and Confucianism may well be able to offer such. Today, the number of people listening to the opinions of experts has increased. Daniel A. Bell thinks that one of the main contributions of post-Cultural Revolution Confucian discourse has been to re-open the question of how much Confucianism can offer in the twenty-first century. In the past, says Bell, Confucian scholars outside mainland China “did maintain the Confucian tradition, but more as a kind of a family, educational, and social ethic,” but when it came to politics, “there was pretty much a consensus in the overseas Chinese community—including Hong Kong and Taiwan—that Western liberal democracy should serve as the standard to judge what counts as political progress and regress.”34 Nonetheless, Bell points out that some mainland Confucians (e.g. Jiang Qing) reject this dogmatic view as they believe “Confucianism has a lot of to contribute also in terms of what counts as the standards for political progress and regress.” 35 With further discussion on the role Confucianism could take in the future, there will be more room for analyses and criticisms, and with more scholars exerting their opinions, different types of discourses will emerge. Bell asserts there have been great advancements in current historical academic research on Confucianism (e.g. from Chen Lai), and he is convinced that Confucianism has the potential to replace the normative or conventional policies of Western liberal democracy. In this regard, one plausible resolution is to try to come up with a creative system framed upon the dominant political ideologies of the West by supplementing it with Confucian characteristics that are based on the recent developments of contemporary Confucian discourse. The economic, social, and political transformations China underwent during Deng Xiaoping’s mandate had a decisive impact on both the future of the nation and the mind-set of the people. One can say that new generations are curiously receptive of Confucianism as they are becoming increasingly aware of its importance. Nevertheless, there is a backlash towards ancient traditions as many modern ideas are taking over the established set of attitudes of newer generations. Roger T. Ames claims that the indigenous impulse of the Chinese is accountable for the Confucian revival that emerged after the Cultural Revolution. He states that despite the fact there was an “anti-Confucius campaign that ironically got everybody to re-read Confucianists in order to criticise him, Confucianism is back and strong in China today, and that is no surprise, and it will grow increasingly strong as long as the Chinese are Chinese.”36 China is undergoing a cultural transformation. The new generations of Chinese are not only becoming more receptive of their own traditions but also, they are increasingly interested in other cultures. The Chinese people are struggling to find a new cultural identity in the midst of the modern socio-political organisation of the CCP and the Western drifts and inclinations that are reverberating in the nation and neighbouring territories. The third-generation New Confucian Liu Shu-hsien once wrote: “It was only after the death of Mao that China returned

34 Daniel A. Bell, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 28, 2015, Beijing, China. 35 Ibid. 36 Ames, “Interview.”

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 137 to a more moderate policy that opened the door to the outside world, and the fortunes of Confucianism have gradually improved since then. Now it is thriving in the new millennium, like a phoenix reborn from ashes.”37 After Mao’s death, society and scholars could reassess the tradition without overlooking its positive aspects; this allowed them to reconsider how their cultural traditions could play a significant role in China’s future. With the opening of China, the Chinese citizenry began to look at Confucianism in more constructive ways. Post-Cultural Revolution Confucian discourse is more likely to fit into modern global political and philosophical discourses since it has actually demonstrated its ability to deal with the pluralities of the time. Current intercultural and multilateral dialogues among nations enable more scholarly and intellectual interactions. Unlike neighbouring countries or territories that kept certain Confucian practices during the twentieth century, China became rather critical of it and tried to put an end to the old ethics and rites. Now that Confucianism has been invigorated, the discourse of contemporary overseas scholars is gradually becoming crucial to the development of modern Confucianism. The question, however, lies on its contemporary significance, relevance, and praxis.

Is Confucianism still Relevant?

Soon after the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, Confucianism gradually became an unsubstantial socio-political practice in China. Nonetheless, first-generation New Confucians aimed to preserve the tradition. Thanks to their works, and their efforts to transmit their interpretations to their apprentices, Confucianism endured and acquired solid philosophical substance in the twentieth century. If contemporary scholars wish to sustain and preserve the dialectics of Confucianism, they can make use of existing teachings and interpretations while combining them with their own understandings of the tradition in order to make Confucianism feasible today. Something that troubles many overseas scholars is that a strong public pragmatic role for Confucianism is not currently in existence; this being so, the discourse is still confined to a purely academic context. However, the tradition does continue to develop, and it is certainly taken seriously as a philosophy. But what modern Confucianism should stand for today is still a theme that is in need of further development. Confucian doctrines invite individuals to engage socio-politically while also fulfilling their own roles as members of society. Any attempts to recreate this tradition today will have certain social and political implications; nevertheless, most discourses remain confined to academic circles or merely exist as philosophical ideas. So, what benefits or contributions are academic or philosophical discourses on Confucianism able to furnish for modern society? Even though several scholars locate specific features within the tradition that could be implemented in current social or political environments, it is likely that many of the ideas and opinions of these scholars are not currently being taken into account. Thus, it is a challenge for

37 Shu-hsien Liu, “Contemporary Confucianism,” in The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy, ed. Jay L. Garfield and William Edelglass (Oxford University Press, 2011), 95-96.

138 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM scholars to make Confucian doctrines viable and practical. Many believe the teachings can produce positive changes in current social and political frameworks, but such changes need to be acknowledged at the outset by both society and political actors alike.

The Role of the Scholar

There exist several Confucian concepts that can be contextually re-adopted and theoretically applied in a twenty-first-century anthropological setting. But, what role do contemporary Confucian scholars play in creating a better understanding of this tradition? In an essay written by Chen Lai, he points out Feng Youlan’s two modes of traditionalism in Chinese philosophy: “to speak according to” and “to speak in continuation with.” Chen designates the former as negative traditionalism and the latter as positive traditionalism:

‘To speak according to’ means to strive to repeat the original meaning of an old classic or the expression of a tradition. ‘To speak in continuation with’ is to consciously continue a topic of traditional thought, to stand on the heights already attained by traditional thought and thanks to fresh understanding and hermeneutic structures, on the basis of the direction and logic of traditional thought to push thought one step forward.38

Chen invites his readers to pay attention to “the fact that the Chinese ‘philosopher’ is not concerned with the ‘game’ of pure dialectic. The Chinese philosopher is even more concerned with values and wisdom in living.” He adds that “from the point of view of Chinese philosophy, the key meaning of the classics is that they provide us with a direction for spiritual life and values and lead people to seek ‘what can be used’.”39 Chen uses the term “Chinese” philosopher, but not only Chinese philosophers are concerned with values and wisdom in living; this also concerns many non-Chinese scholars of Confucianism as they interpret the classics in order to develop and present their own understandings of the tradition. To give an example, Steven C. Angle takes “Confucian values seriously, not just as something to study but also as a way to live.” Angle is a self-proclaimed Confucian philosopher yet thinks “it is not entirely clear what it is to be a Confucian today.” Angle thinks of himself as a Confucian, but he has still given some thought to what entitles someone to be or live as a Confucian in today’s world:

I think the question of “How to be a modern Confucian?” is a bigger question than, “How could one be an American Confucian or a Mexican Confucian?” I think that, “How to be a modern Confucian?” is a very big question in China, so where you are in the world or what language you grew up speaking, is less of an issue in terms of “What it is to be a Confucian today?” than the whole challenge of modernity.40

38 Lai Chen, Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View, Brill’s Humanities in China Library (Brill, 2009), 327. 39 Ibid., 328. 40 Angle, “Interview.”

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 139

For Angle, being a Confucian transcends one’s origins. The fact that Confucianism emerged in China does not mean that it is only relevant to the Chinese. What is important to consider is “How to be a modern Confucian?” because—unlike ancient times in China where an individual could identify to a particular school, behave according to the rules of propriety, or follow certain recommendations established by sages or rulers that were well-versed in the ru tradition—there is no principal authority or specific set of guidelines or requirements nowadays that are capable of dictating what entitles someone to be or not to be a Confucian. Moreover, it will be exceptionally difficult to measure to what degree one is actually a Confucian. There can be certain behaviours an individual can exert in their practice of a Confucian lifestyle but then we go back to the same perplexities that entangle Confucianism with modernity. For instance, it is difficult to measure benevolence, wisdom, and ritual propriety; or indeed, what it means to be sincere, exemplary, cultivated, or righteous. Some people and scholars may find Angle’s self-classification somewhat unusual because how can a laowai 老外 (foreigner) be a Confucian? But this is exactly what Angle is trying to exemplify: defining what a Confucian is today is more important than who could be a Confucian. Thus, it is a matter of relating one’s self to the tradition and practicing it according to one’s own understanding of it—as in the case of, for example, John H. Berthrong and Robert C. Neville, both of whom also see themselves as Confucians.

Contemporary Weight of Confucianism

One could ask if New Confucianism is able to achieve the same leverage that classical and Neo-Confucianism did in times past, but there is only a remote possibility of New Confucianism having such a comprehensive level of success. Confucianism was established as the state ideology of unified China during the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE). During the Song-Ming period (960-1644), it incorporated Buddhist and Daoist doctrines, it developed as a philosophical tradition, and it eventually reached neighbouring territories as well. Nowadays, Confucianism still does exercise considerable influence in East Asian societies; however, it has already ceased to be a concrete source of governance. The Chinese philosopher Ni Peimin is hopeful that modern Confucianism will succeed in attaining the same leverage as it did in the past. Ni does not see other strong rivals or alternative intellectual forces, so he is confident that Confucianism is a great resource and that its own greatness will determine its influence in the future.41 Steve C. Angle, on the other hand, thinks “it is absolutely impossible for Confucianism to be again what it was in the Song or Ming dynasty or the Warring States or any time in between because the world has fundamentally changed,” especially now that its institutional forms (e.g. the abandonment of the civil service examinations) have disappeared. 42 Angle makes reference to Yu Ying-shih’s metaphor of Confucianism as a wandering soul (youhun 遊魂) yet still finds a lot of inspiration in the political philosophy of New Confucian intellectuals as well as in their diligent efforts to

41 Ni, “Interview.” 42 Angle, “Interview.”

140 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM modernise the tradition. Nevertheless, according to Angle, the future of Confucianism still remains an open question:

“What Confucianism can be in the future?” is just an open question right now. It is a fascinating open question which people are starting to make claims, particularly in China, about representing it or being Confucians. But I think that it is still early days to know where that is all going, where that is going to go. One of the reasons I think is important to do work on this idea of Progressive Confucianism is that some of the people trying to claim the mantle of Confucianism today, including Xi Jinping, are making Confucianism out to be a very anti-progressive thing—which I do not think fits well with what Confucianism historically has been and should be now.43

While it is impossible to know what disposition Confucianism may take in the future, it is clear that those who conduct research on it are setting forward different theories and opinions of what direction it can, may, or should take. Several works of contemporary Confucian political theorists revolve around the idea of linking tradition to modernity. Many overseas scholars have a clear vision of what it would take to modernise Confucianism and to make it relevant today. To begin with, Confucianism should not be assessed as solely belonging to the Chinese; it should be viewed in terms of global interconnectedness. Certainly, it is important to note that because it is a tradition that emerged in China and some of its tenets are still found in the social structures of China and other Confucian civilisations. According to Sungmoon Kim, Jiang Qing’s account of Confucianism—which was fashioned as an applicable and adaptable version to the Chinese system—is too transformative and too radical. He says, “People like Jiang Qing are not just presenting Confucianism as a cultural resource of Chinese legitimacy, they envision wholesale Confucianisation of the Chinese political system—which is not what political leaders really want.”44 If Jiang’s vision of Confucianism is too radical or transformative, what kind of Confucianism could be taken seriously by those in power? How can Confucianism be adopted by the Chinese government (or elsewhere) and become a legitimate and applicable way of governing? Is it not one of the main aims of Confucianism to bring about social order through moral rule? It is true that Jiang’s suggestions clearly do not suit the existing agenda of the CCP, and even if some Chinese leaders do have a deep or genuine commitment to Chinese cultural traditions, they are not overly enthusiastic about embracing Jiang’s proposals because they are still deeply committed to Maoist and communist ideas.45 Kim points out that even though Chinese society does not precisely operate on the basis of Maoism-Leninism, the Communist Party still maintains these ideas and legislative structure. As a result, they would not be easily persuaded to give up on the socialist-communist political arrangement they have, given how they are genuinely concerned about how to maintain and preserve the system they have

43 Ibid. 44 Kim, “Interview.” 45 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 141 established. 46 Nevertheless, although the Party practices a socialist agenda, the so-called “Chinese characteristics” ingrained within it are, in one way or another, Confucian in context. For Confucianism to be practiced in modern China, the involvement of the government is required. Today, Confucianism might not get the same degree of leverage classical or Neo- Confucianism did, but it must not be forgotten that New Confucianism is rather new. It is only about a century old, and it continues to be developed academically and is becoming more noticeable with the rise of China. John Makeham observes that today we are just borrowing little bits and pieces of the tradition. He believes that for New Confucianism to flourish as it did in the past, an institutional framework with a “complete Confucian education system, and the bureaucracy, would have to be designed to take people educated in that system to work in government.”47 Makeham asserts that New Confucianism is unlikely to rise as strongly as it did before but that some interesting experiments can nevertheless be carried out—even so such experiments will probably not last.48 Daniel A. Bell also considers that one way Confucian socio-political values could be revived in China is through the educational system. He believes that this type of reformation could be done at all educational levels—where there should be more emphasis on the Chinese classics and Confucianism—as in the Confucian educational experiments in Qufu and other special economic and cultural zones. He thinks these sorts of activities are fascinating attempts to promote more Confucianism and that “one important advantage of the Chinese system is that you can do this experimentation at the local levels.” This way, before executing it elsewhere, the government can see what works or what does not.49 Bell thinks it is essential to promote Confucianism in unofficial ways as well—for instance, through NGOs or private schools, by relating Confucian norms within the family, or practicing rituals in ancestral temples—and that Confucianism should not just have one official interpretation; otherwise, it would be a disaster for the tradition to the extent of completely ending what it actually stands for.50

New Political Culture for the CCP

New Confucianism is at its preliminary phase, and it requires further development in order to reach a more advanced stage. Overseas and mainland New Confucian discourses will be decisive factors in China’s path towards achieving its communist objectives. There have been numerous debates on whether Marxist and Confucian doctrines (or Chinese philosophy generally) complement each other. 51 Some people believe Marx’s communism and Confucianism have similarities, but because both were developed in different parts of the world

46 Ibid. 47 Makeham, “Interview.” 48 Ibid. 49 Bell, “Interview.” 50 Ibid. 51 See for instance, Chenshan Tian, Chinese Dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism (Lexington Books, 2005); Li Zehou 李澤厚, Makesi zhuyi zai Zhongguo 馬克思主義在中國 [Marxism in China] (Mingbao Chubanshe, 2006); Sébastien Billioud, “Confucianism, “Cultural Tradition” and Official Discourses in China at the Start of the New Century,” China Perspectives, no. 3 (2007); Daniel A. Bell, “From Marx to Confucius: Changing Discourses on China’s Political Future,” Dissent 54, no. 2 (2007).

142 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM and at different times, the social, political, economic, and cultural conditions are very much distinct.52 China’s political system was invigorated in the twentieth century on a Marxist-Leninist basis via the Communist Party as led by Mao Zedong. Because of this, it may be too soon for Chinese leaders to re-integrate Confucian modes of governance into their current political agenda, especially if China is doing relatively well as a modern nation-state. Its economy is thriving, the citizens have access to affordable health care, there is a nine-year compulsory tuition-free education system at elementary and secondary levels (six and three years respectively), its military is the largest and also one of the most powerful in the world, and even though corruption is a big concern, it is being combatted with an iron fist. Confucianism is part of the Chinese culture, so it can be easily accommodated as a stimulus for improving the socio-political system. Sungmoon Kim says that the system can be modified and yet still retain more or less the Leninist structure since it is not in the interest of the Chinese government to Confucianise the system. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to remove the statue of Confucius from Tiananmen Square.53 Confucianism has been deeply accentuated by the Communist Party as a cultural resource, but it is strongly preferred that the current political system should be maintained as it is. In an addendum prescribed during the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China held in Beijing on October 18-24, 2017, Xi Jinping 習近平 declared a “New Era” to praise the advancement of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Xi’s political theory under the name “ on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” is an effort to rejuvenate the system for a stronger and more influential China domestically and abroad. The agenda is set to improve the necessities of the rapid changing and ever-growing Chinese society while international trade and global environmental concerns are also listed as priorities. China’s political ideology is grounded on Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Deng Xiaoping Theory. By the turn of the century, the former president of China Jiang Zemin 江澤民 postulated the “Three Represents” in order to improve and strengthen the Party’s commitment to always (1) represent the requirements of the development of China’s advanced productive forces, (2) represent the orientation of the development of China’s advanced culture, and (3) represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people.54 Traditional culture has become an important aspect of the progressive stand of the Party, even though it was vilified for most of the twentieth century. Now, however, the Chinese cultural heritage is no longer viewed as a subversive force that is going to impair China’s path

52 In a famous fictional encounter between Karl Marx and Confucius written by Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892- 1978) in 1926, Guo defends Confucius against the people of his generation who unconditionally rejected the sophisticated teachings of the Master. He stresses that they go about criticising Confucianism without making thorough efforts to understand Confucius’ teachings and simply pretend they know better from what has been presented before them. In response to the rejection of traditional Chinese culture and acceptance of Western doctrines, Guo wrote this brief yet amusing parable around the time the New Culture Movement concluded. See Moruo Guo, “Marx Enters the Confucian Temple,” Renditions 51 (1999). 53 Kim, “Interview.” For details on the appearance and removal of Confucius’ statue from Tiananmen Square, see, “Confucius Statue Shows Up On China’s Tiananmen Square,” Huffington Post, January 14, 2011; Andrew Jacobs, “Confucius Statue Vanishes Near Tiananmen Square,” The New York Times, April 22, 2011. 54 Jiang Zemin 江澤民, Lun “sange daibiao” 論“三個代表” [Discussion on “the Three Represents”] (Zhongyang Wenxian Chubanshe, 2001).

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 143 towards modernisation. Instead, this very heritage is helping China to acquire a new and unusual cultural identity, and with the Party’s commitment to always “represent the orientation of the development of China’s advanced culture,” it is likely that China will continue to engage in preserving its most appealing cultural elements in order to define its identity and that some positive outcomes can emerge as a result of this. The current Chinese leadership is keen on becoming a model for other nations, and culture does play an important role here. The “culture fever” (wenhuare 文化熱) of the 1980s gave rise to a series of debates on how to re-address traditional culture in modern China.55 It was during this decade that guoxue 國學 (national studies) regained popularity, and by the 1990s, it had already gained a lot of success in the academic sphere.56 Kang Xiaoguang points out that after the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese government “put a stop to formalized and organized anti-tradition activities,” and by the end of the 1980s, the government “started to deliberately promote the renaissance of Chinese traditional cultures, resulting in the rise of ‘Guoxue fever’ or ‘the fever of traditional cultures’ in the 1990s.”57 Kang argues that the government has employed certain strategies to restore Chinese traditional cultures:

(1) To change its previously hostile attitude towards traditional cultures and gradually accept traditional values, especially those of Confucianism (2) To directly make use of its resources to initiate, organize and carry out relevant actions (3) To guide, encourage, and support civil activities pertinent to rebuilding Chinese traditional culture (4) To actively export Chinese culture, which enlarges the scope of between China and the world58

Each of these individual strategies, are informed by a number of examples provided by Kang. These attempts to revive and promote traditional culture demonstrate the government’s willingness to preserve valuable characteristics of Chinese cultural traditions (particularly Confucianism). But several scholars believe that this governmental reacquisition of culture may simply be a tactic for maintaining and increasing their own legitimacy. Chen Lai, for example, believes the contemporary renaissance of Confucianism has been enabled in China in order to strengthen the Chinese people’s confidence in their own culture and to allow a transformation of China’s political culture:

55 Similar to the anti-Confucian campaign of the mid-1970s—which ironically got people to re-read Confucian texts in order to attack Confucius and Confucianism—the culture fever of the 1980s was more of an anti- tradition movement responding to the sudden changes in the Chinese political climate; although, that served the purpose of focusing attention on tradition which, in an ironic way, paved the way for the reversal in attitude to tradition in the 1990s. 56 For a general overview of the development of guoxue during the twentieth century, see John Makeham, “The Revival of Guoxue: Historical Antecedents and Contemporary Aspirations,” China Perspectives 2011, no. 1 (2011). 57 Xiaoguang Kang, “A Study of the Renaissance of Traditional Confucian Culture in Contemporary China,” in Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, ed. Fenggang Yang and Joseph Tamney (Brill, 2012), 33. 58 Ibid., 47-50.

144 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

I think our ruling party has reabsorbed the political ideas and values of Confucianism in order to deal with the pressing issues we face, which is not to say that the leaders are fond of Confucian thought, but that they responsibly face our cultural resources and face our problems. This shift, to use academic words, could be called the re-Sinicization of the ruling political culture. Re-Sinicization does not imply that in the past we did not deal with Chinese problems or were not Chinese enough, but rather that we now self- consciously utilize the resources of traditional Chinese culture and even more self- consciously.59

In recent decades, the Chinese government has taken action to raise the significance of Chinese culture. It helps legitimise its power domestically and internationally by openly and consciously supporting Chinese culture and by making efforts to integrate traditional values with modern practices. Phrases such as “ruling the nation with virtue,” “advance with the times,” “being human based,” “valuing harmony,” and “the power of the people” are now part of their political discourse, and it can be argued these are centred on or related to Confucianism.60 Using these Confucian slogans, the Communist Party is looking for useful items within the tradition to help them tackle modern issues. The government has become more receptive and aware of the value and richness of Confucianism, and they want to take advantage of it to improve the social, political, and cultural context. If these are enhanced, the people will be content, and the Party applauded. Consequently, society will be more receptive to the CCP’s rule. Nonetheless, there are limitations to how far Confucianism can become more pragmatic in China. Steve C. Angle thinks it is difficult to develop Confucianism in China because its richness endows it with the potential to furnish some social or political critiques against the established regime. He wonders if Confucianism will take an institutional form in the future— such as a Confucian Democratic Party, similar to Christian democratic parties in Western Europe. However, a multi-party situation in China is certainly far from feasible. Any hypothetical institutionalisation of Confucianism need not be applied to China alone; neighbouring territories could also take such an approach. Angle states that “Confucianism is not really playing a very significant role in the social, cultural, and political discourse in Taiwan, but it could, it may; there are some people engaging in that kind of work.”61 The same goes for China and other Confucian civilisations, but how can Confucianism play a more pragmatic role? Angle suggests that academic conversations are essential for developing Confucian thinking and social criticism, and this could be achieved if they do not entirely interpose the government’s agenda—for instance, by attempting a full democratisation. Also, because conversations today are much more international than they used to be, it is easier for people to have access to a much richer understanding of what a modern Confucianism is, or of what it could become.62

59 Lai Chen, The Core Values of Chinese Civilization, trans. Paul J. D’Ambrosio, et al. (Springer, 2017), 147- 48. 60 Ibid. 61 Angle, “Interview.” 62 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 145

Confucian Pragmatism

Certain Confucian principles are notably adaptable in today’s society, and even though several scholars are trying to find ways to constitute its relevance, making Confucianism a pragmatic social philosophy requires patience and support from academic communities and social and governmental bodies in order to make it happen. Ni Peimin finds Confucianism and pragmatism to have a lot of similarities, to the extent that Confucianism can be regarded as a pragmatic philosophy, but he prefers “the term gongfu because it is an art, whereas the term pragmatism leads people to the idea of just looking at the immediate result of utility; art is not the same as utility.”63 Ni is trying to advance the term gongfu, a term widely used by Neo- Confucian scholars; he believes that some of the structural limitations of are caused by the lack of practicality and inability of what theories could pragmatically transform:

In my own case, I am pushing hard on this gongfu approach. I think this art of life approach can help us to overcome the intellectualist tendency that has been dominating Western philosophy for a long time, and at the same time, this approach can help us to avoid some pitfalls of practical theories like pragmatism because pragmatism…does not pay enough attention to the transformation of the person, that it is the main problem. The gongfu approach can also help us to see the relevance of our knowledge of theories and philosophy. We will not, using this approach, no longer treat our philosophy as merely theories but as guidances to life, so I think this way we can correct and overcome some major tenet limitations of Western intellectual tradition and help it to move forward.64

In a recent article, Ni provides a more detailed articulation of the pitfalls of practical theories such as pragmatism and instrumentalism and explains that “similar to the traditional Chinese gongfu perspective, pragmatism also evaluates ideas and theories according to their practical implications.” However, he insists that pragmatism does not focus on the agent or the cultivation of the agent but rather places an emphasis on actions and their consequences.65 The gongfu method can be used to interpret Chinese traditional philosophy as a pragmatic philosophy. It allows us to understand the prescribed set values found in Confucianism in a creative and legitimate manner. Also, according to Ni, gongfu has at least six different interrelated meanings:

• The time spent on something • The effort spent on something • The proper and effective way of making an effort or spending time, or particular instructions on how to make such an effort

63 Ni, “Interview.” 64 Ibid. 65 Peimin Ni, “Gongfu Method in the Analects and its Significance Beyond,” in The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, ed. Sor-hoon Tan (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 138.

146 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

• The ability to make efforts in a proper way • To describe the level of the abilities • The function, effect, or manifestation of the abilities66

Interestingly, scholars of Confucianism effectuate gongfu when conducting research. As per the definitions above, they spend time and effort to write about Chinese philosophy and how it can be taken intentionally as a process for authentic reformation of contemporary moral philosophy, politics, society, culture, and other areas. Contemporary scholars have worked on combining Confucianism and pragmatism in various ways. Robert C. Neville notes that “Confucianism, especially in the traditions coming from Xunzi, has great affinities with Charles Peirce’s pragmatism.” For Neville, “ritual is semiotic behaviour, so Confucianism can be related through Pierce to much of Western Philosophy.”67 Neville did a comparative study between pragmatism and Confucianism (and phenomenology) which emphasises the roles of pragmatic semiotics, the role of the individual in Confucian ritual performance, human development through rituals, and sincerity in ritual playing. He calls it a comparative pragmatic-Confucian theory of the self. 68 Pierce’s pragmatism deals with giving meaning to ideas and concepts that are already customary to the individual. Pierce’s own version of pragmatism (or pragmaticism as he preferred to call it) is provided in a figurative conversation between a questioner and a pragmaticist stating that “pragmaticism does not intend to define the phenomenal equivalents of words and general ideas, but, on the contrary, eliminates their sential element, and endeavours to define the rational purport, and this it finds in the purposive bearing of the word or proposition in question.”69 He also confesses his pragmatism is closely related to Hegel’s absolute idealism70 which, simply, is based on the dialectics of perception. An interesting item pointed out by Neville is that “much human experience is guided by values that involve explicit purposes that are more or less conscious.” 71 But, how can a Confucian practical application be measured and who are responsible to evaluate or allow these theories or beliefs to be put into practice in a “proper” Confucian way? Neville believes Confucian rituals are an essential component for the development of values within the self and these can be correlated to pragmatism and other Western outlooks. If Confucianism is emancipated by the human person in the form of ritual, this could be a great starting point, but it requires utmost disposition of the person to sincerely and sensitively embrace certain aspects of the tradition with affinity. These rituals would normally follow a procedure or have a performance object (or objective) which should be consistently and consciously enacted by the individual. With this in mind, one can easily relate gongfu to ritual performance because there

66 Peimin Ni, “Gongfu—A Vital Dimension of Confucian Teaching,” in Confucius Now: Contemporary Encounters with the Analects, ed. David Jones (Open Court, 2008), 168. 67 Robert Cummings Neville, interview by Rogelio Leal, May 30, 2016, electronic correspondence, Singapore/United States. 68 Robert Cummings Neville, “Value and Selfhood: Pragmatism, Confucianism, and Phenomenology,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 42, no. 1-2 (2015): 197. 69 Charles S. Pierce, “What Pragmatism Is,” The Monist 15, no. 2 (1905): 175. 70 Ibid., 180-81. 71 Neville, “Value and Selfhood: Pragmatism, Confucianism, and Phenomenology,” 198.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 147 is a sophisticated and sincere effort to progress in the sort of Confucian-ness that is trying to be achieved through rituals.

Political Relevance and the Future of the Tradition

The teachings of Confucius and of his main interpreters can act as a rational expression to encourage and enable harmonious relationships among individuals and societies. Confucianism does not need to be an alternative to modern Western ideas or other existing classifications. Instead, it can genuinely assume a complementary role. But, what is the best way to make Confucianism pertinent at this time and epoch? This is a question of practicality. Confucianism can be practiced only if it is learned, studied, and accepted by the people. Thus, education and instruction are fundamental aspects to consider when aiming to move from theory to practice. At present, the political ideology of China is no longer based on Confucian doctrines, unlike in imperial times, and politically speaking, there is a strong commitment to abide by Marxism- Leninism, Maoism, and the socialist and communist agendas. Sungmoon Kim states Chinese leaders are still deeply committed to the ideological foundation of the Communist Party and that this is not just lip-service. Although they do sometimes accommodate Confucianism into their agenda, it is simply because this is accepted as part of the Chinese culture, as an invigorating force for the regime, but with no intention to Confucianise the system. The political leaders do not have a deep interest in Confucianism as a political theory that can affect or influence the way the Chinese political system operates.72 One alternative to China’s current political system is to introduce a democratic system or democratic principles, but this seems far from achievable. The Communist Party is eagerly aiming to keep and to strengthen the existing structure of the government; this can be observed in the revisions and amendments to the Party’s constitution during the National Congresses, where the political discourses often focus on ways to reinforce the Party’s ideology. Lee Ming- huei, for example, thinks it is a big problem for Confucianism to develop under the current political system of the Communist Party; instead, he believes it will be easier for Confucianism to develop under a democracy:

How can Confucianism develop under this political system? Sooner or later, the Chinese intellectuals will have to face the problem of the Communist Party, but what if the Communist Party rules forever? The current problem in Taiwan is related to this. I am not a Taiwan pro-independence, but I do not want to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party either. I agree with the Chinese culture, but I do not agree with the Chinese Communist Party. Because can you imagine a party that has created so many problems, how can the Cultural Revolution have legitimacy now? This problem cannot be discussed in China, but it will soon face this problem. Mainland intellectuals say, “Why don’t you want to be united with us?” First, why is it that the Chinese Communist Party is an ever- present ruling party in the constitution? We cannot accept that; the position of the

72 Kim, “Interview.”

148 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Taiwanese intellectual does not accept this. Because I can talk to a Westerner and he or she will understand, but this issue cannot be discussed in China.73

Lee’s antagonism towards the Communist Party is two-folded. First, during the initial decades of Communist rule, there were events that caused major turmoil in China, and the Party is to be held responsible for these. Lee gives the example of the Cultural Revolution, yet events such as the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Tiananmen Square incident (1989) were also devastating. These events are about more than mere circumstantial responsibility; rather, they were the result of despotic or, at the very least, undemocratic policy making—and in some cases, arbitrary decisions by individuals with excessive power. Consequently, because the Communist Party is the single ruling authority, it ought to be accountable for any socio-political turmoil or economic decay. After the Cultural Revolution, the Party has been invigorating itself, and the new leadership appears to be more forbearing, yet the Party still rules with an iron fist. Second, Lee finds it problematic that there is no room for democracy in China. The single- party system does not allow its citizens to select their leaders, so the current government rules the nation using its own agenda, choosing for the masses what they believe is best for them.74 It will be difficult to replace a government—that is not serving the people—if there is no opposition party, and in China, any sort of movement or display that goes against the Party’s agenda is sensitive. For instance, artists, writers, human-rights advocates, public intellectuals, and other groups or individuals who have dissimilar views with the ones of the Party are repeatedly censored as they could cause public disturbance or give the Party a bad image thus delegitimising its rule. Chinese political culture need not restrict itself to borrowing solely from modern Western political philosophy in order to redefine its system; Confucian political philosophy can be used as an instrument to empower harmonious relationships between the Party and the people thus becoming beneficial for internal and external political affairs in China. Confucianism is the epicentre of Chinese traditional culture, and if both the government and the Chinese people pay more attention to it, could there be more illustrations of virtuous modes of governance? Confucianism can be used as a way of promoting tolerance, respect, and altruism. It can be used to create an effective political agenda that looks after the well-being of the people resulting in a society where morality is exemplified, which in turns facilitates a good rapport between the government and the community.75 In May 15, 2014, several scholars gathered in Singapore to discuss the future of Confucianism. Daniel A. Bell, Joseph Chan, and Bai Tongdong participated in a panel discussion titled “Can Confucianism Save the World?: Reflections by Three Contemporary Political Thinkers.” In this talk, Bell emphasised the idea and revival of political meritocracy from the Confucian perspective; Chan stated Confucianism needs a systematic reconstruction in order to harmonise with today’s most common system of governance (i.e. democracy); and

73 Lee, “Interview.” 74 Unlike a Lockean where the government can be overthrown if it does not serve the people, the Chinese system is more inclined towards a Hobbesian social contract where citizens—have no choice but to—give up some of their rights and liberties in exchange for security and protection. 75 In Western political and philosophical terms, this sort of comportments align better to Rousseau’s social contract where people bind to a community aiming to uphold the well-being of the majority through altruistic behaviours.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 149

Bai focused on practicing compassion and teaching people to care for others, starting from the family and extending to the rest of the community and society.76 Sungmoon Kim also attended the event, but he was not convinced that the title of this public lecture was necessarily accurate:

All these people are my good friends, but can Confucianism save the world? I do not know, I mean, can any idea? But if there is a similar talk or type of conference or event, in Korea or in Taiwan, the people would be laughing because it is nonsensical for them since “they know what Confucianism is,” that is also a problem. It is a problem in terms for people like us because when you present your political theory, your idea there, people say, “Oh! You are talking of Confucian democracy,” and immediately they reject it because they think they know what Confucianism means. In their view, Confucianism can be never tethered or connect with the good things that they cherish: democracy, liberalism, and rights.77

Kim argues that Confucianism failed historically in East Asia and that, as a culture, it was institutionally eradicated and destroyed; but now, a new modern Confucianism is vigorously re-emerging in places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and partly China. He thinks it has a lot to do with the fact that these societies no longer have or live with Confucianism, so the efforts to reintroduce Confucianism and traditional culture is seen in the school curricula and institutions of higher education.78 Yet, Kim believes there is an important cultural disjuncture since the kind of Confucianism people are learning in today’s educational institutions does not necessarily conform to the practice of Confucianism historically.79 It is necessary to take into consideration a holistic account of the evolution of the tradition before any attempt can be made to adapt Confucian concepts to a contemporary context. Certain concepts might be interpreted differently by particular groups of people, and this might be an obstacle when trying to put theory into practice. For this reason, it is crucial to consider the interpretations and discourses of contemporary proponents of Confucianism to see how some of the inherent meanings of Confucian doctrines and terminologies could possibly be implemented—if and when intended. For example, one key development in today’s political Confucianism is that some scholars are looking for ways to reconcile Confucian political meritocracy with democracy and modern ideas of freedom and equality. Daniel A. Bell believes it is important to have harmonious relationships among people, countries, and even nature to achieve stability and balance; nevertheless, this requires some sort of hierarchical relations:

How you can have a modern society without hierarchy? That is just not possible. Or, which hierarchies are justified, and which ones are not? There is not a lot of good theorising about that in the West, but Confucianism has a lot of to offer. But again, it

76 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Can Confucianism Save the World?: Reflections by Three Contemporary Political Thinkers, May 15, 2014. 77 Kim, “Interview.” 78 For instance, Kim gives the example of the Yale-NUS College in Singapore where students are required to take a mandatory course in the Analects—and selected works by Mozi, Mengzi, Xunzi and Zhuangzi— regardless of their major. The yearly intake of that institution is on average 150-200 students and not all are Singaporeans. 79 Kim, “Interview.”

150 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

must be reconciled with some degree of commitment to equality, so I think those are interesting areas that will develop in the future. So, the tensions between democracy, meritocracy, harmony, freedom, equality, hierarchy, and how to reconcile them, I think Confucianism will have a lot to contribute.80

It is essential and necessary for Confucianism to sprout beyond its theoretical implications if it wants to be pertinent today; its applicability can only succeed if it adapts to current world settings. The presumption that Confucianism is still pertinent is supported by twentieth-century New Confucian literature and existing Confucian intellectuals and scholars who vehemently use their hermeneutical thinking to produce literary works that encourage or endorse the sustenance of this tradition. Furthermore, Bai Tongdong also thinks that compared to Western liberal democracy, Confucianism can offer better solutions to lots of problems. He notices that “a lot of open- minded thinkers and politicians in China think that the key to Western liberal democracy is the one person, one vote system.”81 He finds this to be the most problematic part of wanting to find solutions to problems by using liberal democracy. Instead, he proposes to adopt other valuable ideas from the West such as liberty, constitutionalism, and the rule of law to revise and balance out policies. According to Bai, there are some similar things found in traditional China, but they are just not as developed as the current Western mechanisms. He believes that having an independent judiciary system and things like freedom of speech and freedom of press are good for the well-being of the economy and that these should be emphasised by political reformers rather than solely focusing on the one person, one vote system. He suggests that, in the event that China comes down to selecting officials through the one person, one vote system, it should be balanced out by a meritocratic branch.82 Bai is not trying to say Confucianism can save the world. Naturally, neither Confucianism nor any other doctrine or system of governance can offer solutions to all the problems that may arise, yet Bai and others scholars believe Confucianism can function as a tool to prevent or ease future socio-political difficulties. Confucianism has traversed the East Asian periphery and is increasingly gaining popularity as China rises. To date, it can be said that most contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism follow Feng Youlan’s idea (or traditionalism) of “speaking in continuation with” the tradition rather than “speaking according to” it. Today’s fresh and new interpretations are shaping the way Confucianism is understood, but more importantly, they are defining the direction Confucianism may take and how adaptable, useful, and applicable it can be socially and politically. It is fascinating how Confucianism falls into a wide-range of areas from self- cultivation and virtue ethics to social relations and governance, and the steps scholars are taking will certainly influence its practical development and evolution.

80 Bell, “Interview.” 81 Bai, “Interview.” 82 Ibid.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 151

Preserving the Legacy and the Teachings of Confucius

Why is it important to preserve the legacy of Confucius? In many ways, the Confucian tradition concerns norms and principles that naturally lead individuals to become exemplary persons. After the individual becomes familiar with certain virtuous conducts, these qualities can be extended to the family, community, society, nation, and beyond. Self-cultivation, in the Confucian context, is the starting point to become a source of inspiration for others and to act as a genuine human person. One’s commitment to learn the Confucian Way is a venture towards ethical character building, for it is necessary to cultivate the self through dedicated learning and mindful reflection of one’s comportments. While some contemporary scholars are not specifically aiming to preserve the legacy or teachings of Confucius, they are implicitly doing it. Essays, books, commentaries, manuscripts, articles, and lectures on Confucius, his followers, and the tradition are signs that Confucianism is being, in one way or another, preserved. New Confucian scholar Zhang Junmai notes:

It is common knowledge that in China a tradition is carefully preserved. But to say this is not to say that the tradition does not undergo any change. Since the death of Confucius, many new ideas or schools of thought have arisen, even though they are confined within the Confucian tradition. The Classics remained the same, but many new commentaries have been written which interpret the Classics from fresh points of view. New terms were coined, and old terms acquired new meanings. Especially was this so with the commentaries written by the Sung philosophers.83

It can easily be argued that the old is being transformed and adapted to the new. Even though Confucianism is an ancient tradition, it aims to resolve ordinary matters faced by humans regardless of the epoch. Certainly, tradition and modernity clash at times, but if Confucian doctrines could aid to advance modern societies, why should not it be preserved? Preserving cultural heritage is intended so that future generations can understand how their present has been shaped by past events; at the same time, it helps maintain a sense of belonging to a specific culture/community. China will continue its path to modernisation, and its society and the government are looking for valuable items within Chinese traditions to continue on this progressive path.

Reviving Rituals through Education

Ritual propriety (li) is a distinctive feature of Confucianism and plays a vital role in preserving the tradition. It serves as an expression for human beings to regulate and adorn other Confucian virtues such as benevolence (ren) and righteousness (yi).84 Without rituals, the individual cannot go about practicing what he or she has cultivated in his or her heart and mind. According to Robert C. Neville, the ubiquity of values must be emphasised, and the modern scientific

83 Carsun Chang, The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought (Bookman Associates, 1957), 228. 84 Mencius 4A:27.

152 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM fact/value dichotomy rejected if the tradition is to be preserved. He states that the human individual and social life must be treated unanimously as part of nature, not as set apart from it.85 For Neville, a critique of rituals is necessary; the old rituals must be amended to develop new and improved ones. Similarly, Stephen C. Angle thinks the role for ritual is under-appreciated. From a broad perspective, he believes the whole idea of rituals needs to be modernised and proposes to “change rituals, criticise rituals, and create new rituals” as they are an important part of the social function that should be understood better.86 Reconstructing and adapting Confucian rituals in the modern world involves patience and perseverance. Rituals are an important part in preserving the legacy and teachings of Confucius, but without educating the people, ritual propriety may not achieve its purpose. For many scholars, education is primordial in preserving and continuing the legacy of Confucius and its ethical implications. Angle states that it is not clear what “ethical education” and “ethical cultivation” could mean to the modern human.87 Yet, these could be primordial elements for moulding a systematic method of moral education. Angle uses his interpretations to build upon Confucian concepts and how these can be adapted to modernity including new things—foreign to traditional Confucianism—such as the rule of law and rights that protect the people and are necessary conditions of modernity in order for people to be able to function as Confucian citizens. 88 In Neo-Confucianism: A Philosophical Introduction (2017), Angle and Justin Tiwald conclude that Neo-Confucianism has had a long-lasting effect on Chinese society and other East Asian civilisations. Through his works, Angle aims to develop contemporary Confucianism by educating people, and by conversing and engaging with other scholars, philosophers, and Confucians in and outside China. Other scholars such as Daniel A. Bell and Sungmoon Kim also place an emphasis on learning and education. Bell says that people do different things to help continue Confucius’ legacy; such as starting schools/academies or embracing a Confucian lifestyle. Bell tries to evaluate his own behaviour in light of Confucian ideas. He can see that in Confucianism, as opposed to liberalism, for example, there is a more proactive and pragmatic involvement of the person:

One difference between Confucianism and liberalism is that you expect to not just talk the talk, but at least to try to walk the walk. In other words, you have, to a certain extent, to at least live it and use it as a standard to evaluate your own behaviour. You can be liberal in theory while still being ultra-conservative in practice, but you cannot really be a Confucian in theory while being anti-Confucian in practice.89

Bell links this sort of conduct to the ideas of nei sheng wai wang 內聖外王 (inner sage, outer king), which means to be committed to self-improvement, while also serving the public in some practical capacity. This commitment is something Bell would like to do in the future since it is

85 Neville, “Interview.” 86 Angle, “Interview.” 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Bell, “Interview.”

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 153 an important part of the tradition. Also, public outreach has changed since the times of Confucius, but Bell thinks that “the teacher-student relation is still going to be held as the core.”90 Kim is more concerned with what form Confucianism could take in the future. He believes civic or moral education is an important aspect that needs to be taken into consideration, but more importantly, a renewal, reinvention, and development of the tradition is what is needed. He suggests this sort of initiative should not be given to the state or the government but to the people, for them to work on initiatives (e.g. religious, cultural, or educational) from bottom-up to re-create a Confucianism that best suits their interests:

If the state starts interfering in this area in the name of moral education, it will be very repressive, and there is good evidence historically that this type of state-led Confucianism has been very repressive for the people who do not favour, or have something to say against, certain state policy.91

According to Kim, only if the state is effectively controlled by the people, the decision-making processes would benefit them, and in the event these do not comply with the needs or desires of the public, amendments can be done to secure and revise policies that are beneficial to the majority. Education can help preserve the legacy and teachings of Confucius. This was essentially what Confucius did, to pass down and transmit knowledge. Umberto Bresciani argues that the modern world is going through a lot of problems, and without a sound and complete Confucian education, there is less room for people to retain it. Bresciani explains that Taiwan is very much oriented towards America and Japan and is trying to de-Sinify itself; nevertheless, he is certain that the habits and traditions still remain Confucian hence could be developed.92 In Wang Yangming: An Essential Biography (2016), Bresciani praises Wang as a fascinating Confucian whose ideas on and ways of using (liangzhi 良知) everywhere were uniquely interesting. Wang’s conscience concerns Mencius’ four principles (benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and wisdom), all which are innate to human beings, but these need to be cultivated, so individuals can reach their potential. Bresciani explains:

Mencius said that every person has the four sprouts, so these four sprouts are inborn, and they react every time you see something. You also have a feeling, the important thing is to feel it and to follow it because if you get used to not care about it, you do not feel it any longer, unless you rediscover it.93

For this to be achieved or rediscovered, some sort of mentorship is indispensable. As earlier specified by Bell, “the teacher-student relation is still going to be held as the core,” so it will be difficult to cultivate virtues without guidance. There is no question that education plays a vital role in facilitating people to grow as human beings; their perceptions, feelings, and

90 Ibid. 91 Kim, “Interview.” 92 Bresciani, “Interview.” 93 Ibid.

154 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM knowledge can only be elevated through guidance, direction, or mentorship. This is what the teachings of Confucius (in addition to a mixture of Buddhism and Daoism) encourage. The different views on how to preserve the Confucian tradition vary among scholars. Ni Peimin, for example, writes books and articles on ethics and social political philosophy using the gongfu approach, yet he thinks there is so much more to do. So, he actively engages as a public intellectual participating in cross cultural dialogues and other events that concern the valuable contributions Chinese philosophy can provide to the world today. There is Bai Tongdong who insists that unlike other traditions (e.g. Abrahamic), Confucianism is relevant to everyone. One example he presents is the Confucian consideration of the role of family. Bai emphasises that families are an important component of the state; he claims that they can significantly help with establishing basic moral stability at the state level because “the best ground for moral education is family, so through family you learn that others exist, that others are important.”94 Bai’s thinking is comparable to that of Cheng Chung-ying’s views on filial piety; he also argues that everyone can adjust to Confucianism, so the things that can be accessible to everyone are the ones that he tries to put more emphasis on when sharing his ideas and interpretations. Moreover, Lee Ming-huei observes that Confucianism was interrupted for too long in China, and if it wants to be restored, it needs to re-enter through its education system. People studying Confucianism are usually university students. Elementary and high schools are not profoundly exposed to Confucian education; however, according to Lee, projects such as the one leaded by Guo Qiyong and others (where Confucianism is added to the high school curriculum) are a must if the tradition wants to be formally reintroduced in contemporary China. In the case of Taiwan, the high school curriculum does teach the Analects and the Mencius, but because the Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan’s current ruling party) is not too sympathetic to the Chinese, they want to remove this sort of education—something that Lee considers to be an unwise decision. Lee thinks this is a “Taiwanese advantage” where the young people learn traditional Chinese culture. Moreover, he believes that the future of Confucianism in China is linked to democracy: “If there is no democratisation in China, Confucianism will be exploited and used by the government thus not having a good development.”95 Following Lee’s advice, the best associates for pragmatising Confucianism are educators and politicians. Confucius aimed to influence people in power, Mencius did the same, and so did their subsequent followers. The whole tradition is, to some extent, inclined towards this purpose. Some Confucian teachings are nonetheless obsolete. But early New Confucians have still aimed to preserve the legacy and teachings of the greatest Confucian intellectuals by revising and restructuring, modernising and adapting these teachings to their epoch. Prominent twentieth-century New Confucians even hold a place amongst the most prestigious Confucian scholars of all time. So, would contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism attain a comparable status? Confucianism is no longer confined to the discourses of Chinese or East Asian Confucian intellectuals. Contemporary scholars are giving rise to novel hermeneutical interpretations of the tradition, for such academics will be able to attain a comparable status to past Confucian

94 Bai, “Interview.” 95 Lee, “Interview.”

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 155 literati regardless of their background origin. Confucianism symbolises an ideal form of humane governance—where people in power strive to ameliorate the socio-political conditions of the state in addition to emphasising self-cultivation—so as long as societies are politically governed and scholars continue to develop the ru tradition, Confucianism will continue as a living tradition.

Deepening Relationships and Wisdom-based Education

To make Confucianism relevant today, some ideas need to be restructured. One proposition suggested by Philip J. Ivanhoe is to reform or modify virtues (without getting rid of all of them) such as filial piety since the traditional version of filial piety is based on ideas that do not make much sense to the contemporary person. Ivanhoe believes we naturally owe much to our relationships: the guidance of parents and teachers and interactions with friends and society shape who we are as humans—something shared with Bai Tongdong and Cheng Chung-ying’s views on filial piety among other scholars. Ivanhoe states that, unfortunately, the hyper- individualism that has developed in the West, and which has already reached the East, deflects the value and meaning that relationships bring to the human person.96 These are essential to people’s lives because humans are relational and social creatures that need others in order to comprehend the deeper dimensions of life and self-cultivation. Confucian teachings have acquired symbolic meanings that reflect the salient characteristics of the tradition and which are contextualised to human concerns. Many features of classical Chinese philosophy can be adapted to contemporary worldly matters; nonetheless, with advances in science and technology, the focus on has driven away individuals from examining the self through reflection. There is too much information out there, so people often forget to look inwards; wisdom and sagacity have been replaced by measured intelligence and practical knowledge. Several contemporary scholars would like to see a wisdom-based Confucian education in school curriculums because it is closer to what traditional Confucian scholars used to teach. Lauren F. Pfister explains:

Anything that relies on texts that are more than a few hundred years old has to really justify the worth of those texts, and their relevance for a wise orientation to life, in an age like ours that is being profoundly shaped by internet environments and technical environments that are far beyond anything that was ever conceived by traditional ru scholars.97

Pfister believes that if people want to return to the philosophical roots of Confucianism, the education system should be reconsidered. He says that education has to do with “what it means to be human,” but this vision has been lost. Nowadays, universities have an agenda to educate people with a specific and assumed that has left wisdom out of the picture. Pfister

96 Ivanhoe, “Interview.” 97 Lauren F. Pfister, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 25, 2016, Hong Kong, China.

156 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM is certain that Confucianism can serve as a source to bring back wisdom in a lot of ways. By using or practicing Confucianism there will be a better understanding of the innate capacities humans possess, which come from various different philosophical roots:

Those basic questions about “What does it mean to be a human being?” and “How are we rooted in our relationships to others?” a lot of religious and philosophical traditions have virtue ethics tied to that and promote this. I think that it challenges our knowledge- based education to become wisdom-based, and that is what I seek to do. I want wisdom- based education. That means, “Yeah, what is wisdom?” You have to talk about that, you have to deal with it, not thinking here merely theoretical wisdom in the Aristotelian sense but the more pragmatic wisdom: sophia, that is, philo-sophia. In having that, you provide a basis by which we can begin to ask questions.98

Pfister notices people are making efforts to bringing back the rituals and that these are helpful in providing civility; however, academics are not so engaged in the community. They only observe and follow their own preferences, and very few participate in these particular forms of life. Pfister points out that Roger Ames—who is also keen on the idea of having wisdom-based education—is an academic to look up to because he is really trying to stay attuned and engaged with the common people in order to have Confucian oriented elementary schools that use traditional teaching methods. For a wisdom-based education to take place, the ancient texts must and should be lived out. This is no longer the case today, but many scholars are trying to make it feasible. Pfister believes that a Confucian-inspired lifestyle can help people to have a more meaningful and profound relationship with the self, which will naturally extend to their interpersonal relationships. In many occasions, modern lifestyles impede the individual’s ability to stimulate his or her inherent and intellectual capacities, so as to gain understanding beyond the realms of phenomenology and (knowledge) empiricism. Cheng Chung-ying asserts that people are intrinsically victims of science and technology, so there is a need to follow the Confucian Way in a postmodern world in order to disengage from such involvements:

When the modern age gives human beings the power of reason in the form of scientific knowledge and technology, either one becomes a slave of the power of science and technology and lives a form of life as controlled by science and technology and therefore loses one’s freedom and , or, on the other hand, one gains control of science and technology and is enabled to seek or reassert one’s own will for independence and spirit of freedom so that one may use science and technology for one’s own purpose instead of being used by it.99

Cheng believes it is up to individuals to decide whether to take advantage of science and technology or to allow them to take control over their lives. He suggests that a “sense of depth

98 Ibid. 99 Chung-ying Cheng, “Developing Confucian onto-Ethics in a Postmodern World/Age,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 1 (2010): 3.

MODERN RELEVANCE AND PRAXIS OF CONFUCIANISM 157 of one’s existence” and identifying “the self as a member of culture and tradition” to become a “sentient, feeling, and genuinely caring person” is needed to rectify our minds.100 Something to note is that Cheng also speaks of “ultimate reality or original reality,” 101 and the aforementioned characteristics do not apply to everyone’s idea of reality. It can be easy to speak of self-cultivation, moral will, or our relationship with nature, the cosmos, or the myriad things, but “ultimate reality” as prescribed in the Confucian dao is not so easily recognised by individuals—including both those familiar with the tradition and those who are not. It is senseless to assume, especially in the postmodern world, that Confucianism is the ultimate reality. Cheng, however, proposes that one must be familiar with the teachings of Confucius in order to be able to experience the “Confucian self-awakening.” A fairly methodical explanation of his depicts his version of onto-hermeneutical methods of analysing texts while utilising the five-stage development of Confucianism; this is because Confucianism is naturally inclined towards the “harmonization of the human self and society to the large world.”102 Cheng’s “onto-ethics” is based on Confucius’ and Mencius’ discourses, and he uses this concept to assemble some key ethical and moral principles dating back to the classical period while striving to make them relevant for us all today.103 Moreover, Cheng also believes that “Confucianism is obligational ethics.” For example, one must recognise his or her obligations in the family: parents will care for their children, and in return, the children must show respect and obedience towards their parents (and other members of the family). He sees this as the “principle of reciprocity” and thinks it is quite important in Confucianism. However, according to Cheng, this principle “is somehow ignored by people talking about role ethics.” Cheng believes this sort of reciprocal interaction is fundamental to Confucianism and thinks this “is basic for developing the individual, a society, and the world.”104

Consequential Outcomes

Some interpretations, ideas, concepts, or notions represented by earlier Confucian scholars are now being discussed by contemporary ones. As a result, certain links between newer and older generations are being produced. This is precisely how the preservation of the tradition functions: by reconstructing older conceptions and interpretations through new and fresh explanations and understandings. The modern relevance and praxis of Confucianism can only be distinguished through contemporary interpretations and re-adaptations of the tradition. Even though there has been more interest in Confucianism in recent decades, only a small number of individuals have profoundly immersed themselves into it or devoted their time and energy towards understanding and developing it. Nowadays, contemporary scholars of Confucianism have a vital role of preserving the legacy and teachings of Confucius (and his followers) through their discourse. As the rise of

100 Ibid., 5. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid., 12. 103 For a deeper understanding of Cheng’s thought on ethics in modernity, see Chung-ying Cheng, “Confucian Ethics in Modernity: Ontologically Rooted, Internationally Resposive, and Integratively Systematic,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 40, no. Special Theme (2013). 104 Chung-ying Cheng, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 18, 2015, Beijing, China.

158 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

China continues, it is equally important to understand the position of this cultural and philosophical tradition, and how it has evolved and continues to do so in order to have a better and wiser perspective of what Confucianism could signify for China and the modern world.

Concluding Remarks

As it has been revealed, a number of scholars face multiple challenges when interpreting the classics, other Confucian texts, and the tradition more broadly as well. The time needed to study the language, capturing earlier meanings and connotations of specific words or phrases, the philosophical intricacies of ancient (and modern) writings or ideas, and recognising contextual socio-political frameworks of China’s history when interpreting texts are just a few difficulties confronted by the scholars when wanting to endow modern relevance—literary or practical—to an ancient tradition or philosophy. Many scholars agree that one of the most controversial parts of Confucianism today is to advance it into practical forms. However, as pointed out earlier in this chapter, after the Cultural Revolution, Confucianism was rather emancipated from its twentieth-century marginalisation. It was a turning point for the tradition, for public intellectuals, and for academics in China as this event gave mainland Chinese scholars—and those working on Confucianism outside China—an opportunity to revisit and discuss Confucianism in academic circles. As a result, the scholarly discussions on Confucianism became a source of inspiration for many scholars and intellectuals. They began to establish and to demonstrate that certain Confucian tenets were still relevant and beneficial for Chinese culture, society, and politics. In addition, it was an opportunity to remark the benefits it could bring to modern society beyond Sinitic cultures. After all, many contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism believe that the tradition is still relevant and that it has a lot to offer today. Nevertheless, the role of the scholar is imperative if Confucianism is to be regarded as a viable way of dealing with modern problems. Also, an important aspect regarding the preservation of the legacy and the teachings of Confucius suggested by scholars is that Chinese traditional philosophy should stop being historicised. This means that it must not be regarded as an outdated or fruitless set of beliefs; instead, it can help us better understand modern Chinese culture and its current socio-political affairs. Things such as reviving rituals, considering wisdom-based education, and enhancing relationships between government officials and scholars appear to be worthwhile attempts to reconstruct a Confucianism that can be adaptable to today’s fast pace modernisation. This brings us to the next and final chapter which concentrates on certain political aspects of Confucianism and their relationship with current political affairs. Most contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism pay particular attention to Confucian political thought as they try to engage or unify politicised forms of Confucianism with modern political ideologies. Often, their aim is to create an alternative and improved political philosophy that highlights sensible ways of converging Confucianism and Western ways of governing.

CHAPTER 5

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

In recent years, Confucian scholarship has found a way of re-emerging as a desirable political ideology. This tradition is concerned with establishing social harmony and political order through the art and science of ethical governing. However, governing does not merely imply to conduct political administrative functions for society, for governing should be also emphasised at the individual level (i.e. governing the self). Consequently, the distinction between governing a state and governing the self is a matter that requires profound examination. Cultivating virtue is central to Confucian political philosophy. The starting point for becoming an exemplary person (junzi 君子) in the Confucian tradition is through the cultivation of virtues. If a ruler lacks virtuous characteristics, it is likely that he or she will struggle or be deprived from maturing into a humane, ethical, moral, and righteous leader. Confucianism suggests rulers must foster several virtues in order to uphold their status as leaders and fulfil the needs of their subjects. In an ideal Confucian political system, for instance, “rule by virtue” (dezhi 德治) could be placed above “rule by law” (fazhi 法治) or “rule by man” (renzhi 人治).1 A virtuous ruler is not necessarily one who has attained (dictatorial) power. In ancient China, some emperors and other individuals who craved power tainted Confucianism with their own despotic ambitions. As a result, Confucianism, especially during the last years of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), was vilified by the multitudes. This prevented it from evolving and maturing into a steady and modern political philosophy—in addition to the Western imperialist impositions that reached China at that time. There were several attempts (e.g. by Kang Youwei 康有為) to keep Confucianism as the governing doctrine in pre-modern China in a manner that still permitted an axiomatic engagement with modern modes of governance. Nonetheless, predominant Western models had already undergone significant development; to the point Confucianism was no match for them. Thus, such efforts appeared as unviable and illegitimate enterprises which were unable to adapt to modern conditions. In their attempts to modernise the Confucian tradition, several contemporary Confucian philosophers and political theorists begin by examining the early Republican period (1912- 1949) in order to establish a connection between Confucian and modern ways of exercising authority. China’s new forms of governance emerged during the early twentieth century, yet many experiments failed. Today, contemporary Confucian political philosophy seeks to turn some theoretical implications into practical ones by borrowing bits and pieces from “rule by

1 It needs to be noted that renzhi is usually understood as another expression for “rule by virtue” since men (humans) who rule should be virtuous.

159

160 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM virtue,” “rule by law,” and “rule by man” seeking to produce proactive and pragmatic Confucian constructs. In this chapter, it will be demonstrated how scholars have used Confucianism to elevate the perception of contemporary politics while aiming to advance the tradition in ways that could benefit the status quo of China, other Confucian civilisations, and the rest of the world. Their discourse has become integral to the development and evolution of modern Confucianism, and by mixing Confucian political thought with already established modern political ideologies, a new common ground can now be recognised on a global scale. The purpose of this chapter is to observe whether the scholars’ discourses could enable the formation of a quasi- comprehensive political ideology with Confucian characteristics that is focused on the contingencies of today’s world. Modern interpretations of Confucianism can help with promoting good governance worldwide while improving multilateral relations among states. Nevertheless, promoting or placing an emphasis on Confucian ethico-political values in contemporary academic circles will not necessarily transcend or overcome the limitations of past and current political viewpoints.

New Modes of Governance: Confucianising Politics

By the end of the nineteenth century, the decline of Confucianism as China’s state ideology became increasingly apparent; it gradually lost political legitimacy, and it was no longer perceived as a feasible system of governance to deal with the processes of modernisation. Prominent intellectuals of the time, including Kang Youwei 康有為 (1858-1927) and Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873-1929), made several attempts to reform the government, but these were repealed by the Empress Dowager.2 At the start of the twentieth century, Western political ideologies infiltrated China challenging the legitimacy of Confucianism. By the 1920s, the communist theories of Marx and Engels and Lenin’s pragmatism were already being appropriated by the Chinese. At the same time, the Confucian intellectuals of the time (e.g. Xiong Shili, Zhang Junmai, and Liang Shuming) engaged on a philosophical journey of re- accommodating Confucian philosophy to the given socio-political context of China. Several decades later, when Confucianism was revitalised in China during the 1980s, Confucian scholars emulated earlier New Confucians by focusing on some of the challenges faced by China. Since then, the government has permitted academic discussions on Chinese traditions in an attempt to reify China’s cultural and political identity for the post-Mao era. Restoring core Confucian values in contemporary China can only be achieved by way of a pragmatic dialogue between Confucian scholars and the Communist leaders. Confucianism is experiencing a revival, particularly in academic circles; but if it is to be truly progressive (a word that many would not associate with the political system of the contemporary CCP), it

2 For a detail account on Kang Youwei’s and Liang Qichao’s role in China’s political reforms and modernisation during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Joseph R. Levenson, Liang Ch’i- Ch’ao and the Mind of Modern China (University of California Press, 1959). And, Kung-chuan Hsiao, Modern China and a New World: K’ang Yu-wei, Reformer and Utopian, 1858-1927 (University of Washington Press, 1975).

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 161 must be adaptable to the current ideological foundations of the Party. Modern nation-states tend to secularise their polity (apart from few regimes that practice theocracy); this means that modern politics have replaced old traditional or religious beliefs as the set of governing ideas.3 In the case of China, re-establishing moral and political Confucian decrees as civic or social norms can produce a symbolic bridge amid politics, society, philosophy, education, and spiritual practices in the country; these could help bring about some positive transformations to the status quo of China while enhancing the welfare of society. Looking at contemporary Confucian discourse and focusing on its applicability, in particular, could accelerate the progress of China in diverse ways. If this is the case, other nations may take China as a model and mimic its ways of governing—just as many countries today try to emulate its economic designs. This is not to say (liberal) democracies should replace their political system with a one-party system like in China, but merely that certain policies and economic and social frameworks could be taken as models for the common good. Chinese modes of governance are grounded on the idea of the new political mandate established after the Cultural Revolution. The Communist Party of China has been continually shaping and underpinning its polity, rearticulating its commitments, and re-politicising an agenda that has directly and indirectly prompted certain Confucian insights. By the time Deng Xiaoping took up his place as paramount leader of China in 1978, domestic politics underwent drastic changes, which ultimately lead the way to opening up the country to the outside world. In consequence, social and (in particular) economic transformations and improvements unfolded. Nevertheless, it was too soon for Confucian enthusiasts in the mainland to help Confucianism resurface. With Deng in power, China aimed for a xiaokang shehui 小康社會 (moderately well-off society)—a term widely used among generations of Confucian intellectuals and verbalised by Deng in 1979 as a cohesive force that would facilitate China’s path towards modernisation. It was not precisely a re-birth of the nation, as China did keep the same political structure and ideological foundation; it was more of a condemnation of the Party’s previous aversion to (Western-style) modernisation and globalisation. At the same time, a renewed interest in Confucianism stirred, and the new leadership allowed Confucian symbols to re-appear; not only in academic circles but also in the existing political discourses. Jiang Zemin 江澤民, for example, placed a strong emphasis on “rule by virtue,” and his successor, Hu Jintao 胡錦濤, endeavoured to establish a “harmonious society.” Even though Jiang and Hu did not directly associate these terms or phrases with Confucianism, both are expressions of the Confucian tradition.4 One could, of course, argue that “rule by virtue” and “harmonious society” are merely standard practices or propositions, and that they need not be circumscribed to Confucianism per se, so it is a matter of judgement or interpretation whether one desires to relate such terms to Confucianism or not.

Perfecting the System: Cultural and National Identities

3 For a lengthy discussion of state sovereignty and secularisation of politics see , Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (University of Chicago Press, 1985). 4 Stephen C. Angle, Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy (Polity Press, 2012), 4.

162 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

In recent years, China has been redefining its cultural and national identity; a mixture of features that are ultimately characterised by cultural nationalist tendencies. The government has played a key role in establishing set practices and attitudes towards reshaping the social order and recognising the importance of the nation’s cultural and traditional elements. According to Stephen C. Angle, the government’s role in redefining China’s cultural identity is a complicated one. He fears that “in some ways, the more the government does, as it were aligning itself with Confucianism, the worse it is for Confucianism.”5 For Angle, the inclusion of Confucianism in modern Chinese politics is an interesting opportunity for it to evolve in a contemporary context, but he is worried that this appropriation risks changing the actual import of Confucianism. For example, the Confucian term harmony (hexie 和諧) has shifted its connotation:

Harmony is obviously a very important Confucian value, but for most Chinese people today, when they hear harmony, hexie, they do not think of Confucianism. They think of hexie shehui [harmonious society]. The government and a lot of intellectuals when they hear harmony they think of the slang “you have been harmonised” or “bei hexie le”. That is to be “arrested” or just sort of “disappeared,” picked up without charges, and that is being harmonised. So, there is a degree to which the government’s appropriation of the language of harmony has taken a lot of social value out of this word. It has made it difficult for Confucians to go around saying: “We should seek harmony”, because it just sounds like that is a government slogan rather than some genuine Confucian tenet. On the other hand, it is hard to get very much done if the government is not, at least, tacitly cooperating in China today. I am not entirely opposed to trying to work with government- funded institutions and so on, but I think we have to be very cautious, cognisant, of what the downsides can be.6

Words or phrases can change in meaning when associated to a particular context. In China, this sort of political rhetoric is widely used by the Party as a means of strengthening its authority and legitimacy. In a similar vein, Robert C. Neville maintains that the government has a more welcoming approach to the tradition and that they have actually become less apprehensive towards it. However, he states the following: “The use of Confucianism for nationalistic ideological interest stands in the way of Confucianism’s future as a philosophy/religion. The future requires that Confucianism show that its approach to human self-cultivation and ritual life can deal with non-Chinese situations.”7 For instance, two former presidents of the PRC have directly or indirectly used Confucianism for nationalistic ideological interests. It is likely that Jiang Zemin used the term “rule by virtue” to show that he and the Party were worthy of being in power; whereas Hu Jintao used the phrase “harmonious society” to indicate that the government’s goal was to establish peace and prosperity among the Chinese people and beyond.

5 Stephen C. Angle, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 11, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States. 6 Ibid. 7 Robert Cummings Neville, interview by Rogelio Leal, May 30, 2016, electronic correspondence, Singapore/United States.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 163

Whether they used these terms in the Confucian sense intentionally or unintentionally, it is clear that as the sole authority of the country, the CCP is concerned about its legitimacy. Because such expressions have been used in China for over two millennia, they sound veracious, and they are undoubtedly familiar to the Chinese ear. Thus, the government permits itself to integrate them into their political rhetoric to maintain and reaffirm the trust of the public. More recently, Xi Jinping and his administration have clamped down hard on corruption. Xi’s anti-corruption campaign is intended to uphold the people’s trust, hoping they will accept and admire his “authoritative” ruling, and the Party’s commitment to make China a great nation. When the Duke of Ai asked Confucius, what should be done to secure the trust of the people, Confucius replied, “Lift the straight and place them over the crooked, and the people will follow you.”8 But again, although this is found in the Analects, that does not mean Xi’s anti- corruption campaign was framed upon this passage (or similar ones) found in the Analects.9 This is the attractiveness and intricacy of the Confucian tradition. Many proverbs, concepts, expressions, or ideas pertaining to it were relevant hundreds of years ago, are still relevant today, and they will remain relevant for many years to come. The aim of the CCP is to develop policies that can improve the welfare of the state in the face of rapid changes.10 One of the main objectives of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party was to perfect the system with Chinese characteristics. It was said that this can only be achieved through modernising the apparatus of governance by focusing on the rule of law and the rule of virtue in order to strengthen the general capacity of governance.11 Combining the rule of law and the rule of virtue could possibly signify that the CCP is committed to incorporating alternative modes of governance so as to modernise the apparatus of their current system for the benefit of the nation. But, will this actually be accomplished by Confucianising Chinese politics? And is this even possible? Ancient Chinese mores could serve as means of understanding and solving China’s current social and political predicaments. Great Confucian thinkers from classical and Neo-Confucian times devoted their time and energy to finding ways of working against socio-political obstacles by looking into the past as a source of inspiration. Confucianism insists in building a harmonious society, but the existing differences of opinions among scholars must inevitably result in disputes about whether re-establishing Confucian values should be accomplished in an orthodox or conservative manner or by using more modern approaches in order to adapt it to existing socio-political measures and current dogmatic ideologies.

Confucianism and the Party Politics

8 Analects 2.19 9 See, for example, Analects 2.1; 2.3; 4.12; and 15.28. 10 For example, through the reform and open-door policy of the late 1970s, by its constant pursuit of developing and strengthening its economy, putting forward project such as the Belt & Road Initiative, and by aiming to lower the levels of corruption within the government. 11 See, “Communiqué of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,” Beijing Review, October 23, 2014.

164 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Several leading contemporary scholars of Confucianism believe that modern political philosophy can be invigorated by combining Confucianism and existing modes of governance—which are mostly grounded on a mixture of Western politico-philosophical frameworks. Chinese leaders claim to be undertaking a peaceful rise, and unless they are provoked, they will endeavour to maintain peaceful relations with other nations. However, one problem observed by several scholars is that Confucianism, as a practical political philosophy, is not being properly addressed; especially by the Chinese government. As a result, China’s Confucian cultural identity does risk decaying once again, becoming something different, or ending up being excessively influenced by non-Chinese ideas. The recent acceptance of Confucianism by the Chinese government is surely a version of Confucianism that will not restrict or negatively affect the current Chinese polity. It is in the best interests of the CCP to maintain social order, so if they make use of Confucianism, they will frame a version of it which gives them the right to govern and which legitimises the Party’s ostensible appreciation for the Confucian (and traditional) cultural heritage. The CCP will not allow other forms of political systems to develop in the country, unless they boost the current political agenda of the Party. One concern for experts in the field is that Confucianism can be used by the Chinese government in ways that corrupt the tradition itself. For example, John Makeham thinks the government’s appropriation of Confucianism is “very cynical and very much designed to lend a level of political legitimacy to the Communist Party by associating the Party with the notion of Confucianism as a form of Chinese cultural identity.”12 Makeham asserts that it is very cynical in its aims and that it is quite fragmented because it is not carried out systematically. He observes that the various campaigns of the early nineties were short-lived; as they focused, revived, and gave attention to certain, very narrow, features of the Confucian tradition. 13 Nonetheless, the current leadership has launched interesting campaigns that have enabled Chinese academics to invest more time and efforts in relation to their studies on Confucianism. Makeham points out the following:

If you are an academic in a Chinese university and you are working on Confucianism, I think there is a lot more money for conferences. We see this reflected in the scholarship. A lot of the scholarship is now written in such a way that is designed to be read by the government, so it is sort of a policy pitches from academics to government. So, if you want to get a project to work on some aspect of Confucianism, I think in contemporary China’s academy is a good time to do that.14

Makeham, however, is sceptical of how long the government will support this type of research, and what kind of aim it actually achieves. He also sees no improvements on that front over the last thirty years, drawing attention to what he calls “short-lived campaigns.” But whether the government is using Confucianism for its own benefit or to get the support of the people by re- enabling Confucianism academically, these actions help create a certain cultural consciousness,

12 John Makeham, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 14, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/Australia. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 165 thereby avoiding the demise of Confucianism and other Chinese traditions as was intended in the past. It is unlikely that the CCP will try to efface Confucianism again, unless its legitimacy is contested by it. They are extremely cautious about how to proceed with promoting the tradition and about the extent to which they will allow it to develop in a domestic context. This is not a surprising strategy on the part of the CCP; on the contrary, it is only to be expected. The government’s authority is typically unchallenged because they have devised plans and policies that they often defend by appealing to the risk of any conflict or revolt jeopardising the welfare of society. Thus, the Party’s intention is to “protect” society and to maintain a legitimate rule. Stephen C. Angle, for instance, thinks the CCP is using Confucianism to justify non- progressive policies that do not fit well with the Party’s communism or its alleged Marxism. Angle’s main concern is that the Party is not using Confucianism for what it genuinely stands for. In addition, he thinks “Confucians should resist having Confucianism be understood as just about the kind of loyalty to the government and promoting a sort of a symbol kind of patriotism.”15 Something scholars such as Lee Ming-hui would agree. Nonetheless, the government’s interest in Confucianism could also be regarded optimistically. Although the government may not be sincere in their appropriation of Confucianism, Bai Tongdong thinks it is better for them to embrace it instead of Communism; he sees this as a kind of progress.16 Bai was once invited to attend a ceremony at the Confucius temple in Qufu and realised that while scholars were standing on the side watching, government figures went to pay respect to Confucius according to their rankings. When Bai saw this, he thought, “If Confucius came back to life, he would just drop dead again, just being so pissed by the scene of how his name was used.”17 Bai reflected on the situation and thought it may not be necessarily a bad thing. He states that the Communist Party was once the most radically anti-tradition of all the political alliances in China, but now they are coming back to Confucius. This is something which, regardless of the Party’s true intent, is an accomplishment for the tradition and its supporters. Bai contemplates the idea that Confucianism may have much more influence on the future of Chinese political affairs if the government continues to use Confucian concepts while supporting Confucian values. He declares,

Mencius has a very interesting mind-set. The hegemons during his times start pretending to be humane and compassionate. He is very critical of them, but then he says, “If they pretend long enough, it will be borne on them.” So, maybe the Chinese government, the Communist Party, because of the vacuum after the death of Mao, sort of a spiritual vacuum they need to fill in, they discover Confucianism. So maybe they are using Confucianism, but after fifty years, how do you know who is using whom?18

Although scholars were being treated as second in rank during the Confucian ceremony, Bai gives the government credit for re-embracing Confucianism and for creating a renewed Chinese political culture with Confucian inputs “as a way of life, as a sense of identity.” He

15 Angle, “Interview.” 16 Tongdong Bai, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 27, 2015, Beijing, China. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

166 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM thinks that after Mao’s death, the Communist Party did not have to hold on to Confucianism, yet he believes credit should be given to them for not doing other things—such as following the Nazis, for example.19 The efforts of the government to welcome Confucianism are also cherished by Ni Peimin. Cultural identity and reshaping social order in China can be done with or without Confucianism, but overall, the direction the government is taking towards Confucianism is a welcome gesture, according to Ni.20 Ni is unsure how the relationship between the Chinese government and Confucianism will develop; he thinks it still needs time as it is not very clear what version of Confucianism they are advocating or trying to put forward.21 This uncertainty is founded, in turn, upon another uncertainty: How much power and recognition will government leaders bestow upon Confucianism in the future? Many government officials may not like certain versions of Confucianism, but they might still use versions that can be adapted to the interests of the nation. Moreover, Lee Ming-huei and Umberto Bresciani, both scholars living in Taiwan, believe Confucianism will gradually be more prominent in China. Lee states that if he was a mainland scholar and felt that the government was not opposing Confucianism, he would collect enough university students to teach them what “real Confucian thought” is—as opposed to teaching the government’s version of Confucianism. He states:

The Chinese Communist Party’s endorsement of Confucianism is better than its previous opposition to it. It is a good development, but we must be careful. In the history of China, Confucianism and government relations were sometimes very tense, but now, the government wants to use Confucianism to legitimise their regime. In the past, Confucianism did not entirely listen to the government, and now, there is such a problem in the mainland.22

Lee often lectures in the mainland to teach his own version and understanding of the tradition. In many occasions, his lectures are recorded or videotaped, so this is a great way for his thought and interpretations to reach more audiences and be studied and interpreted. As for Bresciani, he believes China has a problem, insofar as it does not give Confucianism pride of place. He says that by not prioritising Confucianism, “they are getting completely wrong their culture.”23 Bresciani insists that Confucianism has been part of the Chinese culture for many years but argues that because China now follows, to some extent, a Marxist agenda, they still do not put Confucius at the top:

Confucianism is the base for the educated people to keep society running; it has always been the base. So, I think in China it is becoming again the base all day around, even though the frame up there is Marxist, or so whatever they say. But little by little is

19 Ibid. 20 Peimin Ni, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 15, 2016, videoconference, Singapore/United States. 21 Ibid. 22 Ming-huei Lee, interview by Rogelio Leal, September 29, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan. 23 Umberto Bresciani, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 22, 2016, Taipei, Taiwan.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 167

becoming a Confucian society like in the past, during the imperial times, only instead of the emperor, they have the Party. So, we will see what would come out.24

Perhaps this can be achieved by establishing better relationships between the government and Confucians scholars. Key aspects of political Confucianism could be integrated into China’s modern political system and different mechanisms can be borrowed from all three epochs of Confucianism; especially from the latest interpretations as they are more pertinent to existing states of affairs. Furthermore, the Party’s efforts to keep Marxism as part of their ideological foundation are seen at institutions of higher education in China. University students, for instance, are required to study Marxism. Confucianism, in contrast, is not a compulsory subject to study at any academic level. Philip J. Ivanhoe believes most students do not take Marxism seriously, yet it is a curricular requirement. According to Ivanhoe, the government does not take Confucianism too seriously; except the parts that have to do with authoritarian practices, which are not the best features of the tradition.25 He claims that if they really liked Confucianism and thought that it was the heart and soul of the Chinese culture, they would be promoting it in the classrooms, but that “as a matter of fact, the government does not want that kind of study because that kind of study is going to lead people to think things that are not consonant with the Party line.”26 Ivanhoe recalls there was a high-ranking official in China who wanted to get rid of all Western ideas in China; he says,

When I heard that, some people were very outraged over it, but my response was, “What a great idea! Of course, you are going to have to start with Marxism!” And if you get rid of that, then you will be well on your way to get rid of it.27

Nonetheless, these are not exactly the kind of Western ideas the government is trying to get rid of. Ivanhoe thinks the government should put more emphasis on reviving Confucianism, but the kind of revival that he is interested in seeing is not what the government is doing. He is more interested in what society is doing. Ivanhoe says that current anthropological and sociological works, like those of Anna Sun and Billioud and Thoraval, are the most interesting kinds of revival of Confucianism.28

Scholarly Input in the Government

What is the purpose lying behind the establishment of better relationships between scholars of Confucianism and government officials? Simply it is to take full advantage of Confucian teachings and to use them as resources for addressing social and political problems. Li

24 Ibid. 25 Philip J. Ivanhoe, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 28, 2016, Hong Kong, China. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. See Anna Sun, Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities (Princeton University Press, 2013); Sébastien Billioud and Joël Thoraval, The Sage and the People: The Confucian Revival in China (Oxford University Press, 2015).

168 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Chenyang thinks dialogues between Confucian scholars and government officials can be generated in order to reshape the social order. He says, “I think there are signs that the current leadership are willing to listen, and Confucian scholars have an opportunity to voice their opinions and to influence societies through different and various channels.”29 According to Li, this is already happening, and he hopes that scholars will be able to do more in China and even in other Sinitic societies as well. Bai Tongdong also believes formal and informal dialogues could serve as means of remodelling the social order; nonetheless, such impulses do need to originate from the government itself rather than from society. Bai would like the government to take his ideas (and those of other scholars) into consideration, but he is not willing to put himself in an unworthy or corrupt situation just to ensure they will listen to him. He would rather wait for the government to find him because he is not trying to produce works for the sake of their approval; he conducts research in the way he enjoys and with integrity.30 Other scholars are reluctant to accept that the relationships between the government and Confucian scholars are having or will have a huge impact on government policy. For instance, John Makeham argues that it is very unlikely that mainland scholars such as Guo Qiyong, Zheng Jiadong (who is no longer in China), and Jiang Qing could have an impact on government policies. He explains:

Guo Qiyong is still continuing to be a very productive and influential teacher, but apart from being a teacher, I do not think he has much sway over China’s government policies. I think Guo Qiyong is an interesting example of somebody who is now very much in tune with what the government wants scholars to be saying about Confucianism.31

Makeham praises Guo’s work and thinks that the sort of Confucianism he promotes is a very healthy one. Nonetheless, he claims that Guo has little or no effect at all on government policy and, in contrast, “we see government policy being reflected through some of the areas that the Guo and scholars like Guo focus on.”32 In the case of Zheng Jiadong, he has not been involved in academia for some time. Makeham says Zheng was a very good and original scholar when he was active but that “the legacy he left was probably not a very positive one because of the criminal charges that were directed against him.”33 As for Jiang Qing, he had some influence in the Ministry of Education because of his campaign to get children to recite classical texts. Today, according to Makeham, Jiang’s influence is limited among his own network of disciples (mainly at the Yangming Abode). Because of this, Jiang’s influence on government policy has been merely transitory. Makeham contends that it is quite unlikely that Jiang “will ever have a chance of having much influence in government policy in the future.”34

29 Chenyang Li, interview by Rogelio Leal, August 14, 2015, Singapore. 30 Bai, “Interview.” 31 For an overview of Makeham’s thought on Guo Qiyong’s and Zheng Jiadong’s discourses, see John Makeham, Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Harvard University Press, 2008), 133-48. 32 Makeham, “Interview.” 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 169

Other scholars mentioned by Makeham in this regard include Daniel A. Bell and Sébastien Billioud and Joël Thoraval. Makeham is certain that Bell has “taught a lot of students who have gone on to hold important jobs in government” but doubts that “he has much of an influence in the way they are going to design and implement policy” and that there will not be a “Daniel Bell effect” on the Chinese government.35 Nonetheless, Makeham agrees that the interesting debates Bell has stirred up outside of China “gives some attention to Chinese studies in a broader academic community, which is also always useful for Chinese studies to break out of a very narrow set of issues and to appeal to a broader audience.”36 As for Billioud and Thoraval, Makeham points out that “they have also been able to attract quite a lot of interest in a broader community in France or in Francophone Europe,” but he doubts this “will have any effect on how the French devise their social policies.”37 Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the kind of relationships that can be established between Confucian scholars and the government could serve to develop polity. Ni Peimin, who takes a more neutral stance on the impact scholars have on Chinese policy, maintains that philosophy is quite relevant to politics and that many ideas found in Confucianism can help advance modern social and political institutions. He hopes that today’s leaders can really appreciate the insightful ideas and value of Confucianism, as these can help us cope with a lot of contemporary problems.38Although Ni and other scholars may insist that certain positive aspects can arise from such interactions, many political leaders do not necessarily understand or value the significance of the tradition today. The difficulty lies in truly adopting and implementing the teachings of Confucianism at the government level because to accomplish this, a total reconfiguration of the political system would have to take place. One interesting experiment would be to appoint Confucian scholars as political advisors, so they can train officials to be morally upright, judicious, and authoritative. In this experiment, a combination of Confucian and non-Confucian political ideas could be used to tackle the contingencies of the modern world. In general, dialogues between scholars and governments could serve as a tool to help shape policies for the purpose of benefiting society. These kinds of academic-government relationships are not new, and in recent years, they have become more attractive. Governments are beginning to listen to academic experts in diverse fields due to the rapid changes the world is currently undergoing. Also, other public and private institutions require the expert opinions of those who are painstakingly working to ameliorate the technological, managerial, scientific, social, environmental, educational, and political conditions of any particular nation; or indeed, of the world as a whole.

Confucian-inspired Meritocratic Governance and the Civil Service Examination System

Linking Confucianism to modern Chinese politics is a sensitive topic. In China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (2010), Daniel A. Bell

35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ni, “Interview.”

170 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM discusses several aspects of Chinese life, choosing to focus on cultural and socio-political matters. As a quasi-Communist state, the legitimacy of CCP is founded upon the Marxist ideology; however, in order to keep up with the contingencies of the modern world, Chinese leaders have made numerous attempts to renovate the nation’s cultural identity by promoting traditional values; many which are associated with the Confucian cultural heritage. Bell sees this association as the revival of Confucianism, and he thinks this is being welcomed by the masses (e.g. among university students, courses on Confucianism are taking over Marxist ones).39 Also, Confucian scholars in mainland China, including Jiang Qing and Chen Lai, are fond of reviving Confucianism in political terms However, any attempts made to Confucianise Chinese politics might risk challenging the current political agenda of the CCP. Selecting officials in China has changed in recent years. Bell believes potential leaders should be tested not only for their intellectual abilities but also for their virtue—something Zhu Xi and other Neo-Confucians did intend to assess via the imperial examination system. Bell states that the civil service examinations (gongwuyuan kaoshi 公務員考試) of today are like high-level IQ tests with some fairly easy-to-answer questions about politics. However, the way to filter out people is through difficult questions which properly test the examinee’s analytical abilities: “An examination is a good system for de-selecting those who have, let us say, below average analytical abilities, but it is certainly not sufficient to measure for other things that matter for leadership including social skills and virtue, so it is a step but not a sufficient step.”40 Bell claims that in the past three decades, imperial forms of selecting officials have been more or less restored. He says that, initially, this is done by measuring examinations; it is then followed by performance evaluations at lower levels of government. Yet, difficulties arise when virtue, morality, or decorum are to be tested in examinations. The government can measure social skills and other abilities by looking at people’s performance at lower levels of government, but it is still not a good method for de-selecting the corrupt and those who are lacking in virtue.41 Bell affirms that in China there is a strong emphasis on anti-corruption because it is a system that aspires to be a meritocracy. He says that in democracies, corrupt leaders can be voted out of power, but in a meritocracy, “corruption is like a stake in the heart of the system.” So, according to Bell, the process of selecting leaders meritocratically is very much dependent on peers and people who can evaluate the daily performance of their peers since “they are better judges of moral character, so it is important to have more peer evaluation in the selection process at least as a way of de-selecting the corrupt or those who are prone to corruption.”42 Even so, other factors can also influence performance and evaluations. For example, if incentives such as higher salaries and moral education are provided, officials should be able to practice self-regulation. Bell affirms there are lots of discussions and debates “about replacing Marxism as a form of education for public officials with Confucianism” and that Confucians are right in emphasising the need for more moral education because this tradition has so many

39 Daniel A. Bell, China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton University Press, 2008), 11-12. 40 Daniel A. Bell, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 28, 2015, Beijing, China. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 171 rich resources to offer in that respect whereas Marxism or liberalism have hardly anything to offer.43 According to Bell, before the examination process was implemented in the early 1990s, officials were appointed by their reformist credentials, but nowadays, it has become harder and more competitive to enter the political leadership track in China. In recent decades, performance evaluation has mainly focused on economic growth (e.g. reducing poverty); if officials can maintain or improve the economy, they will be promoted. But performance evaluations have not only focused on GDP growth. Great importance has also been attached to environmental sustainability as well as to reducing the gap between the elites and masses. These criteria have also been used as standards for measuring performance, making it “more mixed and varied than they used to be.”44 Bell claims that “if the leaders do a good job, then they could be promoted, so now, there is this huge variation in this process of promotion much more so than there was in the past three decades which makes it more complex, more challenging.”45 There are several ways of electing officials, but should just anyone be entitled to elect the nation’s leaders? To some degree, this contrasts with the general idea of conducting democratic elections. Yet, many people lack the capacity to recommend or endorse someone as a leader: they are not familiar with the myriad complex processes of governance, nor they understand how politics, economics, or social and political institutions work. Many do not seek the common good, their choices are irrational, or their preferences are certainly not orientated towards seeking the well-being of everyone else. Of course, this is not to say that only people familiar with these processes should be entitled to vote for or elect officials. On the contrary, there must be a balance; an estimation of what is necessary if one is to ensure the well-being of the majority and how to actually achieve such a goal. Therefore, only qualified people should be eligible to elect government officials (at least at the higher levels of government) that are capable to undertake such positions. Nevertheless, this can also lead to corruption and nepotism. Examinations may be a good way to test people and to evaluate some of their abilities, but these are not sufficient in themselves. The idea is to have committed and qualified people in power, but the problem is that within the broader versions of a democratic system, many demagogues rise to power. And, why would someone want incompetent, unjust, or egoistic people in power? Unless there is some kind of idiosyncratic benefit to be gained from doing so, people may elect officials for the sake of their own advantage. In addition, it is possible to manipulate the electoral system of democracies through media, propaganda, or false news and statements that risk jeopardising the common interests of the general population for the sake of enriching or empowering the elites. From Bell’s point of view, it can be concluded that electing officials in China from the lowest to the highest levels of government is done through a meritocratic process. However, there are instances where guanxi 關係 (i.e. network of personal relationships) plays a big role in the promotion of officials. Many officials are offered gifts, property, or invited to luxury dinners to create exclusive ties. Guanxi has been associated with the Confucian tradition as it

43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid.

172 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM relates to interpersonal relationships, but it is not necessarily a negative trait when linked to politics. For centuries, guanxi has been part of the Chinese culture as a way of promoting trust and cooperation among individuals. Bell believes it is important to furnish government officials with the rich resources Confucianism can offer, but he does not think it is ever sufficient to only promote officials. He states that to be promoted, the official must, at least, “have to have the basic ability to get things done.”46 For example, Bell points out that during the construction of the high-speed rail network in China, the Railway Ministry turned out to be very corrupt but still managed to build the longest network of high-speed railways in the world. As for guanxi, Bell says the following:

A lot depends on patronage networks, but that is not sufficient, especially at the middle to lower levels. Once you get at the higher levels then, arguably, patronage matters more because you have already proven your ability, and it really matters who you know and whether you have their support to get supported at the highest levels.47

Daniel Bell is confident that political practices in China and its relatively new modes of governance are grounded in political meritocracy. In The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (2015), he compares and contrasts his notion of political meritocracy with meritocratic elements found in liberal democracies. And, unlike some of his earlier works on meritocracy which were inspired by the Confucian philosophy, The China Model is based on current Chinese politics.48 Some scholars, however, do not have much confidence in this model. Li Chenyang, for instance, is not as enthusiastic:

I think the “China Model” and Confucianism are not the same thing. The China Model is based on the political reality in China. There is a good dose of Confucianism there, we cannot deny that, but it is not entirely Confucianism. I do not believe there can be a pure Confucianism…, as a political philosophy, anywhere. It always has to be combined, integrated into something else, in order for it to really work in politics. Politics, I do not think is a pure domain; if you always be a pure idealist, I do not think indeed it can work, you cannot succeed. But I also think, in the meantime, contemporary China has more non-Confucian elements, the Party and the old Party politics there, than a fair-minded Confucian would like to see. That is my hunch, but Daniel and I may disagree on this.49

If liberal democracy is not fulfilling its functions in other nations, the “China Model” could be used as an alternative. Selecting leaders based on their merits, instead of using the one person, one vote system, suggests officials will generally hold positions of power based on their performance. By using an evaluation structure, they could be appointed to higher levels of government or else be withdrawn from their position according to their achievements. While

46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Daniel A. Bell, The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2015), 12. 49 Li, “Interview.”

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 173 democracy seems to be a good way of organising politics, China has been performing relatively well without a democratic system. The Chinese political culture has much to owe to Confucian political philosophy. It can be argued that the current Communist leadership has realised that holding on to the Confucian tradition is essential for China to be able to reframe its cultural identity. For instance, Li explains that Confucian political philosophy has a lot of purchasing power in society and the government:

Chinese culture is not merely Confucianism…, but Confucianism is a large part of it. It is an important part of it. You cannot continue with Chinese cultural heritage without a large dose of Confucianism there. Within Confucianism, I think in this regard Daniel and I agree that, meritocracy is an important piece of the tradition, and I think we both agree that it still has a lot of life, maybe permanent, I hope, but it still has a lot of life there, a lot of vitality there, even politically.50

Bell and Li emphasise the need of integrating Confucianism to the modern Chinese political system, and other scholars also believe this can have a positive effect. For example, Cheng Chung-ying argues that “since the reform on openness, there is a growing consciousness of the need for Confucianism” as it can help eradicate forms of corruption and restore cultural values, he believes that solely focusing on economic growth is unworthy. Instead, he says, people must naturally develop their own internal virtues to create a better environment for all.51 Stephen C. Angle, on the other hand, is more keen on the idea of Confucianism striving for some sort of social, civic, or political significance rather than merely being confined to individual private morality—a view he associates with Yu Ying-shih—yet more emphasis should also be placed on cultivating the self. Angle believes the twentieth-century New Confucian concept (suggested by Mou Zongsan) of xin wai wang 新外王, which he translates as “new politics,” can empower a new political philosophy and practice based on Confucian political philosophy.52 These and other scholars do not aim to Confucianise Chinese politics altogether, for that is virtually impossible, but they still conclude that Confucianism has a lot to offer. Because this tradition is deeply-rooted in Chinese culture, re-integrating Confucianism with China’s political system can indeed serve as a foundation for creating a modern political philosophy with Confucian characteristics; one which could be largely beneficial. Attuning Confucian- inspired meritocratic elements, among other of its political inclusions, to current systems of government can provide help to promote prepared and bona fide people to power.

Virtuous Ruling Orientation for Legitimacy

50 Ibid. 51 Chung-ying Cheng, interview by Rogelio Leal, June 18, 2015, Beijing, China. 52 Angle, “Interview.”; Angle, Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy, 10.

174 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Confucianising politics does not simply mean to incorporate Confucian principles into contemporary modes of governance. So, is there a rational and unprejudiced way of incorporating Confucian tenets into the political system of a nation to help fulfil the necessities of the people in moderate and realistic ways? The Confucian tradition is overwhelmingly concerned with ethics and morality, so whoever is in power ought to abide by such standards. The role of governments is to ensure the public is substantially happy; at the very least, this entails guaranteeing the basic needs of the people. The one trend that is seen among overseas scholars of Confucianism is the belief that the CCP mainly uses Confucianism for the purposes of strengthening and legitimising the Party’s authority. Some think they are merely paying lip service or distorting the tradition; however, the more the CCP uses Confucianism, the more “Confucianised” the Party could become— resulting in a political agenda that earnestly appraise some aspects of Confucianism. Scholars of Confucianism do not aim to overwrite the Communist agenda with a Confucian one; they are only offering proposals on how the Confucianisation of modern political philosophy (or systems) can serve as principles aimed at making society more moral and that could also elevate sage-like people to positions of power. Politicised forms of Confucianism, however, have not managed to interfere with the CCP’s agenda to the point of being openly practiced—and there is no evidence that the government has any intention of (re)assessing the way they practice politics by using the Confucian tradition. Nevertheless, the Party has a twofold involvement in promoting cultural traditions. On the one hand, by promoting cultural traditions, the government is showing that they are actively willing to compensate for, or at least neutralise, the cultural annihilation attempted in the past. The government has now come to realise the richness of Chinese culture, given that it is part of, and it is every bit as important as, national identity more generally. Thus, contemporary China’s includes traditional Chinese culture, and this is something that should not be overlooked. On the other hand, some argue that the use of Confucianism by the CCP is cynical and insincere. The Party’s representation of cultural identity can be taken as nothing else but a way of legitimising their rule and of leading the citizens to sympathise with the way they conduct their domestic legislation. It could be argued that the Party has placed a Confucian mask over their Communist face to cleverly cover up some of the (cultural) atrocities it has occasioned in the past. Consequently, they aim to save face and maintain or regain honour as the sole power of the nation by embracing traditional values in such a way that people are able to associate the Party with virtuous rulership.

Politicising Confucianism through Designation-neologisms

Since its very origin, Confucianism has been concerned with ethical and socio-political matters, but unlike previous epochs, most of its interpretations today integrate non-Confucian elements. In recent years, several scholars have come up with their own versions or visions of Confucianism by fitting it together with modern or novel political approaches and theoretical

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 175 constructs. Nevertheless, these are mostly elaborated as theories, followed by predictions, but no practical results or experiments have truly resulted from such theories. Although many theoretical have been made about how Confucianism can become politically pragmatic today, this section will only provide a brief depiction of the following Confucian designation-neologisms: Progressive Confucianism, Confucian Pluralism, and Confucian Democracy.53 These types of phraseologies or “designation-neologisms” deliver versions of Confucianism that, according to the designators (the scholars) and their sympathisers, could be taken as genuine or pragmatic and applicable ways to shape contemporary political systems and modes of governance.54 Some scholars have engaged in investigating, analysing, and interpreting key political notions in order to make Confucianism politically pertinent today. The most important feature of these neologisms is that they aim to revitalise certain elements of Confucian philosophy; especially its political aspects. Confucian political theorists, for instance, want to pragmatise Confucianism by adjusting and adapting it to contemporary systems of governance and socio-political organisation. As a result, Confucianism can acquire a Realpolitik posture; thus, some scholars have proposed conspicuous, yet not excessively intrusive, ways of pinning down the practicality of Confucianism into the political realms of the epoch. Confucian designation-neologisms are a starting point for looking at various ways of how scholars perceive a concrete contemporary practice of the tradition. These can be combined, and the best of them can be taken up, in order to embody, enforce, and emancipate a superior political philosophy that is capable of defining the way politics could function in the future. Obviously, a comprehensive political philosophy is not intended here, and such a thing is unlikely to emerge. The reality at issue is more complex than that. Scholars are taking into consideration a variety of elements in order to come up with concrete ways of directing politics using Confucian and non-Confucian elements for the purposes of determining the most congruous, humane, and righteous modes of governance. As with older and more current political philosophies and theories, these designation-neologisms can be used to provide a refined political philosophy—one that will be interpreted and practiced in tune with the cultural, social, economic, and educational elements of a particular nation or region. For many people, these proposals may not be ideal ways of putting Confucianism into practice, and others may see them as being far from applicable in practice. Nonetheless, some people may still end up being inspired by them, or some kind of functionality or interesting ideas may yet arise from them. There are no guarantees that these designation-neologisms will benefit societies until governments or people in power adopt and implement one or more of these proposals, or at least some of their component elements.

53 Other examples of Confucian designation-neologisms include Confucian Perfectionism, Liberal Confucianism, Political Confucianism (or Confucian Constitutionalism), and Reconstructionist Confucianism. Other neologisms not utterly associated to politics are Environmental Confucianism, Ecological Confucianism, or Confucian Management. 54 The term designation-neologism is used to describe how a label, title, or denomination is added to an existing concept to form a formal, presumably logical, sophisticated term or expression. Neologism, in this context, formalises a new notion by combining existing words, concepts, phrases or expressions to reach a tactful and desirable conclusion.

176 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Progressive Confucianism

The continuity of Confucian political thinking is one of Stephen C. Angle’s main topics of discussion in Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy (2012). By addressing some of the most significant moral and political propensities of the tradition, Angle proposes a “progressive” version of the tradition that is adapted to the contingencies of today. He appeals to the contemporary remaking of Confucianism; something that is necessary if it wants to become politically significant (again). He also explains how this is already happening thanks to successful Confucian philosophers and philosophers of Confucianism who (along with the tradition) face plenty of challenges as they endeavour to reconstruct it.55 Progressive Confucianism pays particular attention to the five constant Confucian virtues: humaneness, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness. These are labelled by Angle as “fundamental human virtues.” He argues that Confucians value these virtues not because they are the foundation of or somehow central to the tradition alone, but rather, because these principles are intrinsically important for all human beings. Angle’s ultimate ambition and progressive proposal is to philosophically immerse himself in the creation of an altruistic political philosophy that establishes standard or norm ethics of self-improvement and cultivation through “hierarchy, deference, ritual, and state-sponsored ethical education.”56 Inspired by Mou Zongsan’s philosophical reflection of “self-restriction” (ziwo kanxian 自 我坎陷), Angle makes this a central concept of Progressive Confucianism. Self-restriction addresses the relationship between ethics and politics (or virtue and law). He uses its functionality as a way of eliciting a political philosophy that is based on Confucian virtue ethics and the Western ideas of justice, human rights, and civility in order to produce a contemporary Confucian political philosophy that is capable of being presented alongside non-Confucian political (and ethical) structures. To match ethics and politics, a truly insightful analysis must be undertaken in order to make it possible to establish a genuinely complementary relationship between Confucian virtue ethics and Western structures. Angle argues that it is necessary to use non-Confucian elements if Progressive Confucianism is to be truly progressive in character, but naturally, some Confucian conservatives disagree with him. Angle agrees that Mou’s thought and the influences brought to bear on it are derived from both Eastern and Western ideas, but he insists that Mou’s “fundamental goals and conclusions are Confucian, rather than Kantian, Hegelian, or Buddhist.”57 In the eyes of Angle, contemporary Confucian political philosophy requires non-Confucian elements in order for it to truly progress; thus, his philosophy, in the end, is concomitant to Mou’s philosophical (and political) objectives of restoring Confucianism in a contemporary context. Progressive Confucianism is distinctive for its criticism of social, economic, and political subjugation. This version of Confucianism is a quest for collective moral progress and the realisation of fundamental human virtues that have been emphasised and cherished by

55 Angle, Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy, 2. 56 Ibid., 18-19. 57 Ibid., 33.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 177

Confucians all along.58 Progressive Confucianism emphasises ethics and rituals—two items that can be learned through a Confucian education—in the political spectrum for the purposes of improving social conditions in a manner that is both sensible and practical in character. Although Angle advocates for deference, non-oppressive hierarchies, and a moderate perfectionism that is framed upon Confucian principles,59 the masses (including the elites) still need to be persuaded to accept and abide by such premises. As a result, it would be better to focus on, for example, the formalisation of a concrete educational agenda or curriculum which the CCP leaders will be ready to accept and instil at different academic levels. Such precepts must be inculcated since the formative years at school in order to transform society from the roots upwards. But more importantly still, such principles should also be encouraged as part of the cadre selection processes and continued at higher levels of government. This agenda does not need to be comprehensively Confucian by name; it only needs to be a reputable and credible didactic agenda which is committed to uplifting morally motivated and intellectually competent individuals into leadership positions so that a truly progressive socio-political transformation can occur.

Confucian Pluralism

In modern political philosophy, pluralism can be ascribed to the historian of ideas and social and political theorist Isaiah Berlin. Berlin came up with “two concepts of liberty,” namely negative and positive liberties (or freedoms). The former explores the freedom of a person or a group of people from interference by others, and the latter represents the source of coercion, control, or interference in someone’s affairs.60 Berlin’s theory can then be applied to pluralism and summarised as follows:

The extent of a man’s, or a people’s, liberty to choose to live as they desire must be weighed against the claims of many other values, of which equality, or justice, or happiness, or security, or public order are perhaps the most obvious examples. For this reason, it cannot be unlimited.61

Berlin’s point is that values are incompatible and incommensurable; that is, they are different in nature and cannot be measured by the same standards. He states, “Pluralism, with the measure of ‘negative’ liberty that it entails, seems to me a truer and more human ideal than the goals of those who seek in the great, disciplined, authoritarian structures the ideal of ‘positive’ self-mastery by classes, or peoples, or the whole of mankind.”62 When speaking of Confucian Pluralism, some scholars attempt to combine Confucian values with other value systems ranging from politics to ecology. In recent years, Sungmoon Kim has been outlining what (political) Confucian Pluralism is or could become. He uses “value

58 Ibid., 18. 59 Ibid., 140-41. 60 Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford University Press, 1969), 121-22. 61 Ibid., 170. 62 Ibid., 171.

178 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM pluralism,” combining moral or ethical pluralism with political pluralism, as a source of inspiration for accommodating Confucianism to the realities of modern political systems— and to liberal democracy in particular. By integrating Confucianism, democracy, and pluralism, Kim resorts to “construct a political theory of Confucian pluralist democracy by critically engaging with two dominant versions of Confucian democracy – Confucian communitarian democracy and Confucian meritocratic democracy.”63 His “Confucian pluralist democracy” is a criticism and response to Confucian (communitarian) democrats—such as David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames, Russell Fox, and Sor-hoon Tan—with the sole purpose of presenting what he considers to be a more viable and reconstructed Confucian democracy. Kim believes Confucian democrats emphasise the Rawlsian version of liberalism (i.e. “fact of pluralism”)—which Kim characterised as individualistic and as prioritising the right over the good—but they fail to recognise and analyse (Galstonian) “liberal pluralism.”64 Kim integrates pluralism with the constricted view of Confucian communitarian democracy, thereby aiming to transform Confucian communitarianism “into a robust democratic political theory.”65 His solution is to follow these three propositions: (i) unity in Confucian democracy should be more constitutional and less moral, (ii) differentiate Confucian virtues into moral virtues and civic virtues, and (iii) contestation of public norms in civil society.66 In short, these explain both what a Confucian pluralist democracy would look like, and how it might function in practice.67 In this sense, the commensurability and incommensurability of values must be addressed. Berlin, for example, believes that values are incommensurable; while others argue the contrary. It is important to understand that it is possible to measure values by means of identical standards, but many factors (including culture, tradition, and direct experiences) have an impression on how values are measured by individuals, groups of people, or societies. Sungmoon Kim’s thought and recent works are framed upon the pluralist view of how Confucianism and democracy can harmonise and avoid tension. Taking it as an inspiration, he ponders on the relationship between contemporary political aspects of Confucianism and the idea of modern nation-states. Kim believes “pluralism is at the core of modern civil society,” and he questions whether Confucian (communitarian) democracy, pictured as an alternative to Western liberal democracy, is a viable theory that can be practiced in a pluralist context.68

63 Sungmoon Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 103. 64Ibid., 104-05. William Galston’s liberal pluralism contains political pluralism (multiple levels of authorities), value pluralism (multiple attitudes towards values/morals), and expressive liberty (right or privilege to conduct one’s life according to what best fits in terms of one’s own understanding of the value and meaning of life). For a detail account of Galston’s liberal pluralism see William A. Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2002). For his earlier views on liberalism see, William A. Galston, “Two Concepts of Liberalism,” Ethics 105, no. 3 (1995). 65 Kim, 113. 66 Ibid. The second is comparable to Mou Zongsan’s views on the necessity to separate moral values from and political values. See Mou Zongsan 牟宗三, Zhengdao yu zhidao 政道與治道 [Authority and Governance] (Xuesheng Shuju, 1991). Also, this is concomitant to Angle’s view pointed out in the previous section that Confucianism should not be confined to individual private morality. 67 In an earlier chapter, Kim acknowledges that “Confucian communitarianism is culturally meaningful and politically important;” he wants to “save” Confucian communitarianism by “reinventing communitarian Confucianism” into what he calls civil Confucianism. See Kim, 70. 68 Sungmoon Kim, interview by Rogelio Leal, April 26, 2016, Hong Kong, China.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 179

One way in which Kim interlaces Confucianism and democracy with pluralism is his attempt to provide equilibrium between the Confucian and Western models of democracy. He explores “a Confucian democracy that is neither thick communitarian nor liberal individualistic.” This is one of the key contributions of his Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice.69 His alternative to modern democracy is not a full replacement of Western liberal values with Confucian communitarianism but rather a subtle integration of both in order to form some sort of political pluralism characterised by both East Asian and Western values. In a different work, Kim presents a seemingly comprehensive political theory. He begins by conducting a comparative analysis between Confucian meritocratic and democratic practices. His theory, “public reason Confucianism,”70 stands for an improved version and arrangement of Confucian democracy and Confucian perfectionism; or what he calls a “Confucian democratic perfectionism.” This neologism was fashioned by Kim in relation to historical events, cultural values, and contemporary necessities and socio-political frameworks from East Asian Confucian societies such as South Korea and Taiwan. Confucian Pluralism, in the broader sense, falls under political, philosophical, religious, and cultural pluralisms, but it has more in common with value-pluralism since the Confucian values system falls under these fields. Confucian Pluralism, as understood from the value-pluralist perspective, does not intend to propose a universal and commensurable values system. Instead, it aims to produce a well-rounded political philosophy that can be accommodated to the needs of democratic and non-democratic societies by blending and integrating Confucian and democratic values.

Confucian Democracy

Many Westerners see China as an authoritarian nation-state that oppresses its citizens. They believe the communist regime deprives individuals from the benefits democracy can deliver and the (often regarded as “universal”) rights fixed within it. In 1995, certain affluences between Confucianism and democracy were revealed by political scientist Francis Fukuyama in an essay titled “Confucianism and Democracy” where he addressed the question of whether Confucianism and Western-style democracy are compatible. The link between development and democracy is emphasised throughout the essay, but it should be noted that even though Fukuyama approves the modernisation theory—and the fact that democracy can further develop a country’s economy—American or Western-style liberal democracy might still not be the best model for other nations, especially non-Western ones.71 Despite some of the benefits Western-style liberal democracy can provide, it is senseless to believe that its values are universal. This is one of several problems that enthusiasts of Western

69 Kim, Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice, 102-03. 70 In 2015, Sungmoon Kim published “Public Reason Confucianism: A Construction,” American Political Science Review 109, no. 1 (2015). In this article Kim provides the basic structure of his theory then matured in his book Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2016). 71 Francis Fukuyama, “Confucianism and Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 6, no. 2 (1995): 21. For a discussion on Confucian and Western values/models see Fareed Zakaria, “Culture Is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew,” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (1994).

180 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM liberal democracy fail to acknowledge at times.72 For instance, Fukuyama is well-known for pointing out in an earlier work that in a post-Cold War world, the triumph of Western liberal democracy marked “the end of history.” His thesis presumes that Western liberal democracy is a superior ideological alternative to other systems of governance; thus, it is the ultimate “ideal that will govern the material world in the long run.”73 It is most certainly true that democracy can provide economic and political stability in diverse ways, and it is even possible for democracy to address ethical concerns. However, such concerns are also susceptible to particular (e.g. cultural) boundaries that need to be contemplated in an ever-changing world. Many intellectuals, including some Confucian scholars, have been disappointed by democratic mechanisms because several political leaders believe that liberal or Western values are an expression of universal values.74 Evidently, cultural differences play a huge role on how countries go about their polity, and American or Western-style values do not always express or anticipate the realities of other cultures or civilisations. Hence, just because a system of governance or values system is appropriate to one specific setting, this does not imply that it is going to function favourably elsewhere. There have certainly been economic and political advancements in East Asian societies (e.g. Japan or South Korea) which have adopted forms of democratic governance, but the way leaders conduct politics in these societies is heavily influenced by non-Western elements.75 Therefore, it is a good idea to observe what contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism are actually envisioning as a Confucian democracy. Having done this, it is conceivable that East Asian nations could then ameliorate their status quo with a Confucian- style democracy rather than mirroring or relying on a purely Western-style democracy. Several studies and various publications on Confucianism have reassured their readers that Western democracy does not necessarily serve as a model for East Asian societies. Instead, such works propose a Confucian-style democracy as an effective alternative. For example, in Democracy of the Dead: Dewey, Confucius, and the Hope for Democracy in China (1999),

72 During the interview with Daniel A. Bell, he pointed out that many intellectuals and reformers in the West are still sensitive to criticisms of democracy—as well as to capitalism or other Western elements that have been included in other cultures. Bell suggested that they should take these criticisms into consideration and not be too prickly about them, that it is important to be open and attentive to the arguments that are being put forward. For these are precisely the kinds of arguments that can facilitate a higher degree of mutual learning than what is currently being undertaken. Bell prefers to phrase or see this as mutual learning rather than a convergence of customs and values. While democracy and equality of freedom are ideas strongly attached to the West, the way they are used may not reflect what they actually stand for in other societies. So, mutual learning can be beneficial for both China and the West, but the present situation suggests the West is not so eager to learn about or adopt any non-democratic foundations. Ideally, each civilisation should pay attention to the political foundations of the other. Bell believes that while the West could learn from meritocratic ideas and practices, China could also incorporate different democratic ones. It will take time for this sort of mutual learning to happen, and it is not easy to incorporate meritocratic tendencies in democratic systems. What it is more important, according to Bell, is the necessity for people in power to concentrate on long-term interests “which sometimes might overwrite the wishes of the current generations, and it is very hard to do that in democratic ways.” Bell asserts meritocratic forms of government are much more needed at the global level and could enable long-term interests to be realised for the sake of the well-being of future generations and the world. 73 Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?,” The National Interest, no. 16 (1989): 4. 74 For example, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore replied to Confucian scholar Jiang Qing that “the principles of the US constitution express universal values.” See Daniel A. Bell, “A Visit to a Confucian Academy,” Dissent, September 22, 2008. 75 For an overview of the differences between Western and Asian-style democracies, see Steven J. Hood, “The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy,” Asian Survey 38, no. 9 (1998).

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 181

David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames combine Confucianism and Deweyan pragmatism. In this volume, the authors aim to produce a unique style of democracy that is potentially suited to contemporary Chinese society and politics, while being careful not to overlook the distinctiveness of modern Chinese cultural identity. One of their main arguments is that there is room for a Confucian-style democracy in China, as opposed to the idea of a liberal democracy that Western countries (especially the Anglo-European nations) take for granted as the one and only way of establishing a suitable democracy. This leads to the idea that the impositions of modernity or globalisation, rooted to economic and political tenets coming from the West, should not instigate a form of Westernisation in China as the only path to modernisation. Hall and Ames insist that to understand contemporary China, one must recognise that Confucian philosophy dominates China’s ideological thought rather than Marxism. 76 The significant differences between Chinese and Western cultures are measured in this volume through Confucius’ teachings and John Dewey’s pragmatism in order to defend a distinctive philosophical approach to the issue of democracy in China. Hall and Ames claim that because Confucian attitudes persist in China, a unique non-Western version of democracy might well materialise in the future and, perhaps one day, could shape the structure of the governing bodies and social practices of modern China. Taking a Deweyan approach, Roger Ames thinks it is exceptionally important to distinguish the idea of democracy from political forms of democracy. He provides the following example:

The Soviet Union had all of the political forms of democracy, and it was a totalitarian state. It had elections, it had a president, it had people voting, it had ballot boxes, and so on. It had houses of parliament, but it was a totalitarian state. For Dewey, the idea of democracy is all of the people having access to what they need in order to flourish and then giving back to the community individually as unique people what they have been able to accomplish. This means that the idea of democracy and the political forms of democracy are not the same thing. So, what we have to do is, we have to think of Confucianism not in terms of institutions, not in terms of funny hats, not in terms of the trappings of Confucianism. We have to think of it in terms of its ideas!77

In short, Confucian ideas and political forms of Confucianism are different. Thus, to achieve a Confucian-style democracy (taking a Deweyan approach), it will first be necessary to consider Confucian ideas and then to try and materialise them into some specific political forms of democracy that will enable people to flourish personally and that will contribute unanimously and wholeheartedly to the lives of the community. Also influenced by Deweyan pragmatism, Sor-hoon Tan has taken steps to consolidate a Confucian model of democracy by combining Confucian texts and Dewey’s pragmatism. She has written extensively on the topic, thereby offering an alternative model to Western liberal

76 David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames, The Democracy of the Dead: Dewey, Confucius, and the Hope for Democracy in China (Carus Publishing Company, 1999), 9. 77 Roger T. Ames, interview by Rogelio Leal, July 27, 2015, Beijing, China.

182 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM democracy.78 Tan believes that democracy can be facilitated in China by using Confucius’ teachings in a pragmatic and democratic manner. She stresses that to realise democracy in China (and elsewhere), democracy must be understood pragmatically—in other words, it must not be enclosed within the traditions where it emerged—and to achieve a solid Confucian democracy, it is necessary to have more mutual engagement between democracy and Chinese philosophy.79 In this sense, because Chinese traditions are Confucian in character, a version of democracy with Confucian characteristics could be used to instigate the democratisation process of China. So, by blending democratic values with Confucianism and democracy with Confucian values, could it be possible for democracy to flourish in China? One of the main objectives of Confucian scholars is to persuade leaders to produce a peaceful and prosperous environment for the people. Philosophers have examined differences and similarities between Western ideas (e.g. autonomy, liberty, and rights) that are central to democratic theories on the one hand, and Confucian ideas (e.g. humaneness, righteousness, ritual propriety, wisdom, and non-coercive authority) on the other. As a result, the liberal democratic model of the West is unlikely to prevail in the Asian giant. Instead, China might choose to implement its own democratic style. If it does, there is a chance that the CCP will consider a democratic style based on Confucian tenets—something that several Confucian traditionalists are clearly opposed to. This task could be accomplished in the same way as Chinese intellectuals filtered Marxism into China in the early twentieth century (i.e. by exerting their own version of dialectical materialism that was suitable for the needs of the country at the time). The mere fact that Western-based ideas of democracy, human rights, economic prototypes, and social and political organisation have prevailed in the modern world does not mean they are the best models to follow. Thus, if democracy and Confucianism are combined, a Confucian-style democracy could be accomplished and serve as a developmental process towards an improved system of governance. One work that deserves much attention regarding this matter is Ni Peimin’s “Confucianism and Democracy: Water and Fire? Water and Oil? Or Water and Fish?” Ni focuses on Henry Rosemont, Jr.’s views on a hypothetical conceivable form of Confucian democracy by maintaining that the collective choices by members of a community are more suitable for a democracy than solely caring about “formal procedures that protect individuals;” which is something evoked by today’s basic idea or meaning of democracy. 80 Liberal democracy accentuates the liberties of the autonomous individual, but, according to Ni, Rosemont, Jr. envisions a Confucian-style democracy where people from all social classes and backgrounds care for each other in a decent and nurturing environment—as opposed to the hierarchical-

78 See Sor-hoon Tan, Confucian Democracy: A Deweyan Reconstruction (State University of New York Press, 2004); Sor-hoon Tan, “Confucian Democracy as Pragmatic Experiment: Uniting Love of Learning and Love of Antiquity,” Asian Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2007); Sor-hoon Tan, “Why Confucian Democracy?,” in Varieties of Democracy (Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut: Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life, 2009); Sor-hoon Tan, “Teaching & Learning Guide for: Democracy in Confucianism,” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 9 (2012); Sor-hoon Tan, “Democracy in Confucianism,” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 5 (2012). 79 Tan, “Confucian Democracy as Pragmatic Experiment: Uniting Love of Learning and Love of Antiquity,” 158. 80 Peimin Ni, “Confucianism and Democracy: Water and Fire? Water and Oil? Or Water and Fish?,” in Polishing the Chinese Mirror: Essays in Honor of Henry Rosemont, Jr., ed. Marthe Chandler and Ronnie Littlejohn (Global Scholarly Publications, 2007), 92-93.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 183 authoritarian and repressive version of Confucianism that might also be encouraged as an alternative. Ni also illustrates how certain scholarly attitudes do not agree with Rosemont, Jr.’s opinions on the relationship between morality and politics—for example, second-generation New Confucian Xu Fuguan believed Confucianism did not have a democratic dimension since there was no room for society to suggest political change and change came only from the ruler.81 Ni argues that Rosemont, Jr. places the collective community over autonomous decisions, meaning that people need to make decisions based on shared beliefs, rather than purely private ones. To further clarify Rosemont, Jr.’s thought, Ni provides an analysis of Rosemont, Jr.’s views on freedom and states that for Rosemont, Jr., Confucianism and democracy can be compatible if it focuses on the “highest aims of democracy” of creating a prosperous society with “a government of, by, and for the embodied and related people” and incompatible if it focuses on “the liberalist democracy of, by, and for autonomous rational individuals.”82 Democracy has proven to be a viable way to address economic, social, and political matters, but it may not be the only solution to modern-day problems. Cheng Chung-ying points out that in the early days, the avenue for successful governing was to have a sage king.83 To have a sage king in modern times does not mean that a monarchy or monocracy should be established as the preferred form of government; it merely means that there should be coherence, legitimacy, and authenticity embedded in the people who run the government. Ideally, the paramount leader must have the necessary qualifications and capacities for governing the nation. Consequently, whoever is in power would clearly have to appoint perceptive political advisors that will assist in the development of the nation. If a Confucian democracy is to be realised, the political candidates should be qualified to participate in the democratic processes. These processes, however, may not have the same standards as Western democratic ones because the qualifications ought to be measured according to the cultural conditions and status quo of the nation. Cheng Chung-ying states that there is no universal type of democracy He gives the following example:

In the Chinese case, today, if you have a middle class who has the power to support themselves, democracy would come naturally, so it would not be against the Confucian principle. But the Confucian principle does not immediately recognise any person who has not developed morally to have the vote for electing anybody into a powerful position, so they want to avoid a bad king…. The government should be based upon caring for the people, as Mencius would say, so everybody should have the capacity to care for the people. Now, even that becomes clear, relevant, and confirmed, then you have what we may call a moral democracy.84

Having a stable economy and authoritative, honest, government officials has become the foundation of social and political order. Any righteous government would have a commitment, a moral commitment, to care for the people and build a harmonious society. Confucian

81 Ibid., 97. 82 Ibid., 106. 83 Cheng, “Interview.” 84 Ibid.

184 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM democracy is a new development that can help ameliorate the successful achievements liberal democracy has already brought to the modern world, and by incorporating Confucian elements into this, it is possible to achieve a healthy and productive synthesis. In addition to many of the theories linking Confucianism with democracy, some scholars believe democracy will never emerge in China at the national level, as the latter can easily take different directions in terms of its practical application.85 Others believe it will be easier to combine them if Confucianism takes a communitarian approach instead of a liberal one. Lee Ming-huei, for example, states that Western communitarianism emphasises tradition and attaches value to the community—something closer to Confucianism—unlike liberalism, which puts an emphasis on individualism. According to Lee, Confucianism has “personalism” which is neither individualism nor collectivism.86 Lee and others believe many problems Western democratic societies face are related to individualism, and even though communitarianism has been also criticised, it aligns better with what Confucianism maintains. Even among Confucian civilisations, the tradition has developed and is developing differently. Recent debates and discussions among mainland and overseas scholars have become more powerful. Lee Ming-huei asserts one of the greatest differences is that scholars outside of China “affirm the value of democracy,” and the problems scholars like him face apply differently to them. This is because they are obliged to identify the significance and function of Confucianism in democratised societies while mainland scholars deal with different problems. Lee states that “most China scholars hope that the mainland can be democratised, but they do not necessarily openly say that,” and that only a few scholars (e.g. Jiang Qing) will say they do not want democracy to happen in China.87 Still, the current Chinese leadership has recognised and found valuable items in Confucianism. Whether they are only using the name of Confucius to their advantage, e.g. for legitimising their rule, they are making efforts to invigorate the tradition. Nevertheless, Lee believes that, under a Marxist ideology, it will be difficult for Confucianism to surpass Marxism, but at least the Party is less antagonistic about it as it was during the time of Mao.88 As per the case of Hong Kong, things were different. They were a British colony, not a democracy; however, they had the freedom to continue developing the Confucian tradition.

The Future of Confucian Designation-neologisms

In ancient times, the only means Confucian intellectuals had of exerting influence over society was by persuading rulers. The scholar or intellectual was a political advisor, and he acted as an intermediary between society and the ruler. Their acquisition of wisdom was to purposely act as a nobleman and to persuade their leaders on behalf of society to rule benevolently. As the Analects say, these scholars not only studied to improve themselves but also studied for the sake of bringing extensive benefit to society.89 So, is there room for scholars of Confucianism

85 Bell, China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society, 17. 86 Lee, “Interview.” 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 See Analects 14.24 and 6.30

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 185 to persuade people in power today? If yes, could political theories based on Confucian designation-neologisms be a starting point? If no, what steps should scholars take to achieve a higher degree of influence in the political sphere? The primary question to be addressed is this: How “Confucian” or “non-Confucian” are these neologisms, and can or will a combination of two or more actually be applied in a real- world scenario? There are several other designations that have been assigned to Confucianism; some seek to address politicised forms of the tradition and others are non-political in nature (the latter, nevertheless, are capable of being integrated with the politicised forms).90 The main purpose of these designations is to acclimatise and to make available politicised forms of Confucianism for contemporary situations. Revitalising Confucian elements and adjusting them to modern social and political contexts is essential in order for Confucianism to be pragmatic in the twenty-first century. The willingness, determination, and frankness of contemporary scholars of Confucianism are indispensable for the progress and development of the tradition. The practicality and usefulness of these theories may not currently be under consideration by people in power; but as the world faces new problems, many will find that modern interpretations of Confucianism mixed with current socio-political states of affairs could empower future generations to conduct righteous modes of governance inspired by Confucian tenets. Confucian designation-neologisms can be used by policy makers and government officials to shape how societies are organised and politics practiced.

Internationalising the Doctrine: Mingling Western and Confucian Civilisations

What does Confucianism mean for today’s society? Is Confucianism only relevant to East Asian civilisations? Can the Confucian philosophy become a formal contender to Western, modern, and postmodern philosophies? And, could mingling Confucianism with other traditions bring some stability to global matters? Nowadays, civilisations worldwide face a variety of problems. Most nation-states follow Western models to organise their societies and politics, but many have realised that these may not be effective responses to their present shortcomings; nor do they meet the needs and demands of their people. So, there is a chance for prosperous Confucian civilisations to serve as models for tackling modern day contingencies. This tradition offers one promising set of resources, but there is still no guarantee of success. Therefore, if the tradition wants to have an impact in and outside Confucian civilisations, it must be able to unravel obstacles that prevent societies from attaining moral and political growth.

Confucianism in the Eyes of the World

90 For example, politicised: Confucian Capitalism, Confucian Communitarianism, Marxist Confucianism, Confucian Meritocracy, State Confucianism; non-politicised: Confucian Bio-ethics, Boston Confucianism, Confucian (Role) Ethics, Confucian Management, Popular Confucianism.

186 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

China has become a global power, and it will have a lot influence on the future of international relations and world politics. Some scholars believe Confucianism can aid to fill the moral vacuum the world is facing today—a void which is partly due to individualistic tendencies as well as the attachment to impersonal things. So, a pragmatic approach to modern Confucianism could prompt self-cultivation and encourage benevolent and authoritative behaviours in accordance with Confucian and non-Confucian values. Consequently, the intermingling of cultures is essential in order to gradually diminish a great deal of the social and political predicaments faced by humanity today. Nowadays, many scholars are concerned about how the Confucian revival is being understood, used, or perceived. One problem Lee Ming-huei sees is that China, being the largest country in East Asia, has not embraced democracy unlike its Confucian neighbours Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. He says, “When Chinese intellectuals are talking about East Asian Confucianism, Japanese intellectuals and Korean intellectuals are very uncomfortable and disgusted. Similarly, Taiwan’s intellectuals are also very uncomfortable.”91 Although there are differences in thought among Confucian intellectuals in East Asian countries, Lee believes they should be content that the CCP has been recently receptive towards Confucianism; however, he stresses that one of the major worries of many Confucian intellectuals is how it is being used by the Party.92 The point here is to acknowledge that the Party has “re-discovered” some valuable features in the tradition, and even if many scholars do not agree on how Confucianism is being used by the Chinese government, at least they are allowing it to be part of the cultural, social, and political dialogue. Several powerful nations see China as a contender for global power. However, China’s aspirations do not lie in the race for global authority; or at least, that such an agenda is not part of its official pronouncements. Yet, there is substantial suspicion, resistance, and hesitation on the part of the United States and other countries towards the prospect of building strong relationships with the Asian giant. For instance, Roger T. Ames states that “unless America and China can find an appropriate relationship early in the twenty-first century and work together to address the issues of the planet, then life would be very precarious.”93 Li Chenyang believes there will be tension between these two nations because people from the United States “would want to resist Confucianism because they associate it with the rise of China and the power of China.” Nonetheless, Li believes they can help each other in terms of developing new ideas concerning good governance and social progress.94 Ames and Li, among many of their contemporaries, are working towards engaging Confucianism at a global scale for it to be more widely accepted as a that could bring about positive outcomes. Many overseas scholars of Confucianism are making efforts to produce a conscious practice of Confucianism internationally. They use Confucius’ name, his philosophies, and the contributions and commentaries of his followers to try and make the world a better place. Their concerns can stretch from ecology and climate change to economics, inequality, and education. For instance, Roger Ames is concerned about global warming, distribution of wealth, and moral

91 Lee, “Interview.” 92 Ibid. 93 Ames, “Interview.” 94 Li, “Interview.”

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 187 progression at the global scale. He does not examine the downsides of capitalism and liberal democracy purely to point out their disadvantages; rather, since most nations have no other choice but to abide with these tendencies, a good way to improve them is to look at their deficiencies and to try to find concrete solutions. Ames places an emphasis on values, intentions, and practices because these could help solve some of the greatest and most common difficulties faced in the contemporary world. On October 2014, Ames and a group of scholars inaugurated the World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures at the University of Hawai‘i. The theme of the conference was: “Confucian Values in a Changing World Cultural Order.” In this gathering, Confucian cultures were brought together with Europe and America. Since then, there have been more meetings with the purpose of creating awareness of the importance of Confucianism, and how it can blend with other cultures in the region and in other continents.95 Likewise, this consortium is an attempt to make a cultural response to worldwide political issues, and it will allow the next generations to have a deeper understanding of Confucian civilisations and their global shortcomings and contributions. Moreover, for nearly ten years, Ni Peimin has been actively discussing pressing issues of humanity in the World Public Forum – Dialogue of Civilisations. According to Ni, there was not enough presence of Chinese civilisations in this forum, so he felt obligated to contribute to dialogue exchanges in a convivial and intellectual manner. One consensus Ni perceives is that “all people realise that we are in trouble, the whole world is in trouble, and this trouble is not merely economic, not at the superficial level; it is pretty fundamental and then the problem is, how to address these problems?” Ni believes that we must go beyond that and aim higher, not only to promote mutual understanding but also to focus on the necessity to construct or rebuild existing civilisations; however, he ponders how to accomplish this.96 It is important to concentrate on the efforts Ni and other scholars are making to pragmatically revive the tradition. The internationalisation of the Confucian philosophy is an attempt to use it as a reasonable way of responding to certain problems that exist in the world. If any serious attempts to revive Confucianism in a practical way occur, it may be easier for East Asian societies to accommodate parts of its guiding principles into their socio-political systems due to the previous role Confucianism has exercised in the region. Nevertheless, both Western and Eastern civilisations, as well as any others in between, must ponder on a re- evaluation of their socio-political practices as the globalised world moves into the mid-twenty- first century. There is no specific set of rules or norms civilisations must adhere to, but they often rely on previous cultural and customary inclinations. Even though modernisation is often equated to Westernisation, this view is totally unfitted to the realities of current global affairs. There are, nevertheless, several predominant Western principles that have reached civilisations worldwide. These have been adopted and adapted to suit the needs of governments, societies,

95 For a general overview and a list of publications of this first gathering, see Roger T. Ames and Peter D. Hershock, “Special Issue: The World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures,” Philosophy East and West 66, no. 3 (2016). Roger T. Ames and Peter D. Hershock, “Introduction to Special Issue Commemorating the Establishment of the World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures,” International Communication of Chinese Culture 3, no. 4 (2016). 96 Ni, “Interview.”

188 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM or individuals, but modernisation should not be taken as Westernisation. The same goes for Confucianism. It should not be taken as a set of norms which only applies to Confucian societies, and it is this very fact that many overseas scholars of Confucianism want to address.

Clashing Civilisations?

Conforming and acclimatising to modern socio-political paradigms is inevitable. There is no need for the East and the West to compete in corrosive or discordant manners. Whether it is China, the United States, Namibia, or Peru, all nations who wish to progress are obliged to observe the realities of today and to adapt accordingly. One observation made by Stephen C. Angle is that “whatever happens in China is not going to be just a Confucian civilisation, but something that has a variety of different historical roots and is interwoven with other communities and other nations in the world.”97 Nowadays, interdependency is anticipated for the continual progress of nations, but there are regulatory procedures that need to be respected or implemented through bilateral or multilateral dealings in order to establish some sort of order or boundaries wherever and whenever these are necessary. Angle does not believe in “the idea of different civilisations clashing with one another.” He argues that this idea has not been, at least in the West, very well described:

If you have a modern Confucianism that embraces things like rule of law and human rights, not necessarily without some modification, that is an important part of modern Confucian discourse. Well then, why should we think about it as one side versus another? There is also lots that the Western citizens, and cultures, and politics, I think, have to learn from a modern Confucianism, so I do not see it as a situation of conflict, primarily.98

The cultural, political, and values-system gap between Western and Confucian civilisations is large, but this does not imply that they cannot interact in order to improve their own conditions for the sake of peace and stability. The kind of Confucianism Angle would like to see develop is one where politics and law should encourage the moral growth of citizens. He believes this is important, and any up-and-coming model of Confucian politics offered must figure out a way to embrace this. According to Angle, this is something that is not taken seriously in Western politics. Besides, he thinks that “as we sort of think more about what modern Confucian politics is about, we can find other ways in which Western democracies might also be able to be challenged by learning from a modern Confucianism.”99 Likewise, Sungmoon Kim is not convinced that the clash of civilisations thesis makes any sense; this is because we already live in a globalised and interconnected world. Kim sustains there is always a kind of “continual accommodation” and “continual negotiation,” so it is not about picking and choosing but more about practice and evolving in suitable ways. According to Kim, New lifestyles, ideas, and values are things humans accommodate to their own lives,

97 Angle, “Interview.” 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 189 and these will continue to evolve; albeit, not in the teleological sense per se. He says that things will change no matter what, yet certain contention, cacophony, and discordance will always be present.100 Kim does not think this will cause a grandiose cultural clash or at least this should not be the right way to describe what is happening in East Asia, for instance. He sees Confucianism as a tradition that can be subsumed by others; and unlike a Muslim-Christian dual identity—which is unlikely and even oxymoronic—Confucianism can be integrated to other traditions or cultures, create a sort of unison, and avoid strains. 101 “The nature of Confucianism,” says Kim, “does not allow the kind of cultural clash to happen. Confucianism is much more adaptable to differences, cultural differences.”102 Because Confucianism is a humanistic tradition, it is easier for non-Confucian cultures to get a feel for it. But, which aspects of Confucianism, if any, could be legitimately incorporated in an international context? This is still a question that needs to be addressed. Scholars have different ideas on how to go about incorporating Confucian elements to modernity. While some scholars have comparable views, others differ drastically. The rhetoric of contemporary overseas scholarly discourse seems to be directed towards establishing proper relationships among the world’s civilisations. One scholar who emphasises the need to regard Confucianism as a world philosophy is Robert C. Neville. He thinks “Confucianism should not tie itself to a civilization, for instance the East Asian versus the Western. If Confucianism cannot adapt itself to guide the ritual and moral needs of the West in its many forms, then it will have no power outside of China.”103 For, it is important to look at the different aspects of Confucianism and see which ones are relevant to non-Confucian civilisations. For example, one aspect that can be legitimately incorporated in an international context, according to Neville, is “Its understanding of human social relations as shaped by rituals, with the moral consequences of this kind of understanding. Its longstanding and systematic appreciation of the values of things, pushing back against scientific ‘objectivity.’”104 Two other aspects pointed out by Umberto Bresciani that should be internationalised about the tradition are its views on social relationships and its moral competence. Bresciani thinks the social values of relationships are the most important aspects of Confucianism that could be incorporated internationally. An important point made by Bresciani is that Confucianism “always goes back to the basics of human existence,” and this is one of the reasons why it can be adapted at any point in time. He says that Confucius dealt with similar problems that humanity faces today and wanted to enrich interpersonal relationships, social peace, morality, ethics, and promote meaningful lifestyles—the sort of things that will always be around.105 So, there will be room for Confucian and Western predispositions to develop in China—as with past historical precedents in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In fact, any difficulties faced by contemporary Confucian scholars would be confronted by them just as earlier Confucians did. Some of these figures, including Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi, aimed to blend both cultures

100 Kim, “Interview.” 101 For example, the Confucian-Christian dual identity has developed as an interesting phenomenon. 102 Kim, “Interview.” 103 Neville, “Interview.” 104 Ibid. 105 Bresciani, “Interview.”

190 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM at a philosophical level; their efforts have become more and more visible, and it is likely that a mix of Confucianism and Western values will eventually be seen in China.106 In the past two to three centuries, Western values became widely accepted as universal values on account of the intellectual, economic, and political power Western countries have attained. The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, for example, were determining features that helped to model the forthcoming vision of the world in the eyes of the West. Additionally, the two World Wars, among other political conflicts, and the victory of the Western Bloc in the Cold War were symbolic moments towards fashioning Western values and ideas that became appealing—or forcibly imposed—to the world as we know it. Confucian ideas can be incorporated to the modern world by way of a novel approach. Yet, antiquated or non-applicable Confucian practices are obvious limitations that can be found in the tradition. These, however, should not be seen as obstacles to stimulating the revival of certain specific concepts of worth. Ni Peimin believes there is so much we can learn from Confucianism, and almost everything about it can be incorporated on an international basis. He says,

If you look at my book on Confucius, I had presented Confucius as a historical figure, as a philosopher, as an educator, as a political activist, as a spiritual leader. I think in all these aspects, his ideas can help us to see the relevance to today’s life. I recently gave a lecture at a couple of places on modern Western values and Confucian values. Usually people think that modern Western values like freedom, human rights, equality, rule by law, justice, dignity, and science are different, if not contrary, to the basic Confucian values. In the talk that I gave, I listed eight modern Western values and showed to the audience that in each of these areas, Confucianism can contribute and offer a unique vision about what should be freedom, what should be equality, what should be justice, etc.107

One of Ni’s objectives is to make Confucianism relevant to both Western and Eastern civilisations. On the one hand, there is the difficult task of familiarising non-Confucian societies with Confucian values and of leading them to accept these as commendable principles that can improve their lives and the lives of people around them. On the other hand, it has been easier for most, if not all, Confucian societies to adopt Western values. Ni understands that not everything within Confucianism can now be taken in the literal sense (e.g. the three-year mourning period or biased views towards women); nonetheless, he believes that these can be adjusted accordingly. Moreover, Lee Ming-huei believes that the West should pay more attention to what is happening in Confucian civilisations in order to produce better relationships with one another:

Our dialogue with Western culture is one-sided. Now, we have to understand Western culture, but Western interest in Confucianism is not large compared to our interest in

106 Ibid. 107 Ni, “Interview.”

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 191

Western culture; it is much smaller. This is not the way to do it, but this is what Westerners want to do, not us, this is not our way.108

For Westerners to better understand Confucian civilisations, Lee suggests scholars must engage in translating modern Confucian writings so that a cultural dialogue can be truly two-sided. According to Lee, it is a long but necessary process that will bring about healthier discussions on how both civilisations can mutually aid each other.109 Politically speaking, an idea, vision, or understanding of the modern world can lead to differences among nations. One thing Bai Tongdong finds problematic is the notion of the “nation-state.” He believes no one is convinced China will rise peacefully, even if the Chinese government claims to be doing so. According to Bai, history has shown that rising powers tend to become troublemakers. It is essential for the nation-state to secure its own interests to the very uttermost, before anyone else’s—a typical Realist view. Bai suggests avoiding the nation- state discourse, so people and other nations will not be concerned about China’s rise, and one way for the government to avoid the nation-state language is to go back to the old Confucian discourse. Bai is not trying to say that China’s national interests shall be overlooked; he states that those interests should not be merely regarded as the utmost consideration.110 In fact, most countries in the world have so far not shown the maturity and desire to transcend national interests; for example, this can be observed in the current intensification of the US-China trade war or the Brexit referendum. Bai suggests that if China adopts the Confucian discourse, other nations would be considered. The positive aspects may not be reflected straight away, but in the long term, it will eventually benefit the country and fundamentally change the way China is viewed by others.111 Bai is interested in stimulating, through Confucian political discourse, a new sort of domestic “hybrid regime” which uses Confucian values to achieve domestic progress and objectives that will simultaneously care for the well-being of other countries.112 For Philip J. Ivanhoe, Confucianism is capable of symbiotically balancing and harmonise international relationships. In fact, this is what he aims and projects in most, if not all, of his existing works. In today’s world, it is necessary to find cooperative relationships among nations to help address social and political contingencies, and to answer, “How would international relations differ if certain Confucian ideas are taken seriously?” Ivanhoe provides two examples. First, through humanitarian intervention. Ivanhoe takes the idea of zheng 政 113 from the Mencian tradition to address the intervention of one state over another if the people want to be relieved from their suffering. According to Ivanhoe, this is the closest thing found in Confucianism to the idea of modern international humanitarian intervention, but he worries that this conflicts with the state’s sovereignty. Yet, he believes the Confucian tradition can act as a legitimate for determining when it will be a good idea to intervene.114 Ivanhoe’s

108 Lee, “Interview.” 109 Ibid. 110 Bai, “Interview.” 111 Ibid. 112 For a thorough understanding of Bai’s notion of hybrid regime, see Tongdong Bai, “A Confucian Version of Hybrid Regime: How Does It Work and Why Is It Superior,” Prajna Vihara 13, no. 1-2 (2012). 113 Also known as ren zheng 仁政 (benevolent politics) or bu ren ren zhi zheng 不忍人之政 (politics that cannot tolerate the suffering of others). 114 Ivanhoe, “Interview.”

192 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM other example focuses on Realism. He recognises all countries pursue their own interests and do whatever is in their power to accomplish their national objectives—as earlier stated by Bai Tongdong—yet he also argues that cooperation among nations has increased and that a lot of them do share some mutual interests—a more liberal view. Ivanhoe thinks that although there is a lot of competition, there is also a tremendous amount of cooperation. He states that Confucianism has resources for finding harmony and that it also has a more cosmopolitan understanding of things which can help create balance in an international context.115 Mediation and cooperation are of key importance if one wishes to find consensus between Western and Confucian civilisations. Ivanhoe believes nations do not want to create conflicts with one another but that global capitalism and its exigencies play a huge role in the way nations interact. If any problems arise, these are likely to be solved through treaties, negotiations, or similar approaches. Ivanhoe thinks that if China would have more of a Confucian approach towards dealing with clashes with other nations (especially its neighbours), there would be less tension and more collaboration, such that it would eventually benefit and harmonise bilateral and multilateral relations.116 With the rapid rise of China, it is difficult to know how political affairs will unfold in the future and whether China’s own interests will weaken its international relations. The Chinese leadership is announcing a peaceful rise, but it is uncertain whether China will or will not become a difficult nation to deal with if its primary economic and political interests are not met. One must hope that China does not become a rogue nation as it gains international power and that its nationalism or patriotism will not create antagonistic situations in the region and beyond. In recent decades, Western customs and ideas have been gradually welcomed in East Asia; nonetheless, some conservatives and traditionalists regard this as a problem since their cultures are developing by means of Western standards. Likewise, the West is being influenced by various non-Western traditions and conventions. Millions of people are now embracing, and being exposed to, Asian and East Asian customs and traditions. So, would it be possible for Western countries to adopt certain features from the Far East as means of moral and socio- political development? Proponents of Confucianism are confident this tradition is likely to have a positive impact on contemporary global politics, leading to long-lasting truces and harmony rather than clashes and intolerance.

Chinese Philosophy in Western Academia

Before the West can implement or incorporate any Confucian principles to their social structures or political systems, Confucianism must be well understood, and educating the people is of prime importance. With the current progress of Asian nations, many university departments in the West have incorporated courses on Eastern and East Asian philosophy, history, politics, and religion. Chinese philosophy and Confucianism have become popular subjects of study in Western universities, and several contemporary overseas scholars of

115 Ibid. 116 Ibid.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 193

Confucianism who have taught (primarily) in the United States and Europe, have noticed or experienced the growing demand for this type of courses. Institutions in the West are changing their way of looking at non-Western philosophies. Li Chenyang believes the demand for courses on Chinese philosophy will substantially modify the environment for Western academics. When he started looking for jobs in the United States, there were just a few teaching positions in philosophy departments for Asian philosophy, but that has now changed. Li says, “The numbers have extended quite rapidly. Now, in many politically-teaching institutions, you can often find people in the philosophy departments teaching non-Western philosophy.”117 Numerous college students are now interested in understanding East Asia, so they enrol in specific modules to learn about the history, economic performance, modern political character, social organisation, , and cultural vicissitudes of this region. Bai Tongdong took his first job as a philosopher of science at Xavier University (Cincinnati, United States), later he made the switch to Chinese philosophy. His first course on Chinese philosophy was fully booked minutes after registration opened, this demonstrates that there is an increasing interest in learning about Chinese philosophical traditions; however, Bai asserts that “there is still a shortage of qualified teachers produced by American research universities” in this field.118 In many occasions, Chinese philosophy is linked to religious studies. Buddhism and Daoism, for instance, are recognised religions, and the doctrines they espouse are taught at departments of theology or religion. In many Western institutions, however, Confucianism is treated as a religion as well, and this overlaps with experts’ opinions. For instance, Li Chenyang disagrees with how Chinese philosophy is viewed in the West:

I think it is silly for philosophy departments not to welcome non-Western philosophy. The market is there, the world needs it, and it is foolish for philosophers to push those positions into religious studies or East Asian studies. Why not embrace it in the philosophy department? I believe the way the new generation, including some people younger than me, the way we do Chinese philosophy, has some persuasion on those who doubt there is Asian philosophy or Chinese philosophy. I think the way we present Confucian philosophy now, gradually has given more and more credibility on this being a philosophy. I think that will continue, I believe the trend is there, and hopefully that will continue to go upward.119

Interest in Confucianism has increased, and there is no question that the ideas and values pertaining to it are important. But whose ideas are actually being heard? This is an important question that needs to be emphasised. For example, Daniel A. Bell believes that if there were no economic growth or military power in China, fewer people would want to learn about Confucianism. But because China has become a stronger nation, people are paying more attention to its traditions. According to Bell, this is how ideas are often transmitted, and this is also why people are trying to understand

117 Li, “Interview.” 118 Bai, “Interview.” 119 Li, “Interview.”

194 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM what is happening in China and many are even worried about what the country is up to.120 Like Li, Bell finds it odd that Confucianism is being taught in religious studies departments:

I have been to Western universities, and strange enough, it is the religious studies departments that are the most open. But, in other departments at leading universities, like in political science, and in law, and philosophy, to be frank, is still so…, I really want to use the word “backwards,” like stuck in this mode of totally West-centric outlook. Theoretically open to looking at other ideas, but it just does not influence much, for example, what they do in terms of the curriculum and who they hire. So, it is still a ways to go, unfortunately.121

In this sense, Bell and Bai have actually reached agreement. Bell says the curriculum is very much centred on a Western outlook and that the people who are hired may not be adequate teachers of such subjects. And, as pointed out earlier, Bai also believes there is a lack of qualified teachers on Chinese philosophy or Confucian studies coming from the United States.

Aiming for a xiaokang Society

After the end of the Cultural Revolution, the political rhetoric of the Chinese Communist Party introduced two important Confucian concepts to their discourse: xiaokang shehui 小康社會 (moderately well-off society) used by Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and hexie shehui 和諧社會 (harmonious society) introduced by Hu Jintao in 2002. A xiaokang shehui, hereafter xiaokang society, epitomises a harmonious society.122 The concept of harmony (he 和) is often found in Confucian texts and discourses, and it is still widely used among Confucian scholars.123 A harmonious society embraces the idea of appeasing social tensions, turmoil, and degeneration—something governments aim for in their states. Both representations of society, i.e. xiaokang and hexie, are not bound solely to economic prosperity or social and political stability; they are rooted to the ancient concept of datong 大同 (Great Unity).124 In a few words, xiaokang is the second best (or “least-worst”) option one can achieve if datong is unfeasible. Hence, aiming for a xiaokang society is considered by Confucians to be one of the best ways to maintain the social, economic, and political stability of a state. If governments and societies make efforts to follow a specific set of norms—in this case those evoked by Confucianism— righteous governments are likely to arise and to produce harmonious societies. Conversely,

120 Bell, “Interview.” 121 Ibid. 122 The xiaokang concept is found and an explanation is given in the Book of Rites, Liyun chapter; it is also discussed in the Book of Poetry. For a general overview of the term xiaokang, see Bart Dessein, “Yearning for the Lost Paradise: The “Great Unity” (datong) and Its Philosophical Interpretations,” Asian studies 5, no. 1 (2017). 123 For a detail analysis of the Confucian concept of harmony, see Chenyang Li, “The Confucian Ideal of Harmony,” Philosophy East and West 56, no. 4 (2006). 124 For an overview of Confucius on datong, see Book of Rites, Liyun 1 & 2.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 195 aiming for datong is a goal that is utopian in nature, so for obvious reasons, it is unlikely that a Great Unity, as understood in the Confucian tradition, could be established. That being said, xiaokang is understood to be the best system of governance and social organisation to attain a prosperous and harmonious society; one where rulers are committed to upright governance for the benefit and the welfare of all.

Harmony, Socialism, and Values

There is a wide range of discussions and debates in contemporary Confucian studies about ethics, politics, philosophy, society, and theology. And all of these share the same focus: to mature and give meaning to the tradition in the contemporary world. Many experts on Confucianism and traditional Chinese philosophy delve into social, political, and philosophical theories external to the tradition in an attempt to uncover its significance today. Overseas scholars of Confucianism have used Western philosophical theories and ideas to determine whether Confucianism can be synthesised with postmodern philosophy and to examine what forms of Confucianism could best align with modernity; thereby, aiming to make Confucianism of truly practical importance. There are, however, certain limitations to the pragmatisation of Confucianism. Difficult as it may be to revive this tradition, it has regained prominence in recent decades, and it is gradually becoming more noticeable outside of academic circles. China and other East Asian countries are looking to enhance their societies. The societal dynamics of this region are already framed upon Confucian and other Asian and East Asian traditions and values; therefore, it will be easier for them to continue with or reimplement Confucian socio-political practices. Confucian political thought maintains that people in power must adhere to ethical and virtuous conduct. Thus, the Chinese Communist Party could gradually incorporate certain aspects of ancient Chinese political thought into their current blueprint. As discussed earlier in this chapter, some scholars hesitate whether it is a good idea for the government to use Confucian concepts as theirs. For instance, Stephen C. Angle believes “the government’s appropriation of the language of harmony has taken a lot of social value out of this word.”125 Roger Ames makes a similar point stating that harmony and other Confucian values are the political discourse of the Party and that these are being presented to the Chinese as “socialist values” in many ways (e.g. placards all over the cities). As a result, the people are buying into this “socialist” lifestyle that is promoted by the government. He says,

They call them socialist values, but they are Confucian values! I think the Communist Party is making itself into the Confucian Party, it really is. I mean, look at how dramatically it has changed over the last generation. The CCP is going to be the Confucian, the Chinese Confucian Party.126

125 Angle, “Interview.” 126 Ames, “Interview.”

196 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

The government’s appropriation of Confucian concepts may cause shifts in their actual meaning and clearly—since China’s current growth is overwhelming—this process comes with a lot of perplexities and consequences that must be taken into account. Thus, Confucian values are becoming part of the political discourse of the Party as they want to take affirmative action towards building a better place for the Chinese people. And, where else to resort to than its own traditions? Moreover, in the West, this same notion of harmony does not have the same import as it does in East Asian civilisations. In 2015-2016, Li Chenyang participated in a project called “Harmony and Freedom” at Stanford University. Here, harmony was taken to represent more of an East Asian mentality and freedom more of an American or Western mentality. Li is aware that there is a lot of overlap between these two concepts, and before participating in this project, he knew a lot of efforts were going to be made to influence each other. Li hopes for more of such initiatives to bring the two sides together so that they can neutrally define and mutually influence each other.127 In addition, Li thinks that the West and China are capable of producing synergetic collaborations. He is optimistic that dialogues between both civilisations can produce a harmonious atmosphere; however, Li believes “it will take a lot of dialogue, a lot of exchange, a lot of new ideas, and new thinking to come up with that.”128 While there are relatively big differences between Eastern and Western values, strengths from one civilisation can be adopted from the other whilst weaknesses can be identified and subsequently abandoned.

Economic Prosperity and Political Stability: Setting the Example

Keeping a stable economy is one of China’s greatest modern challenges. The Chinese government has set a minimum annual GDP growth percentage in order to maintain its economy, and even though maintaining economic growth is one of their main priorities, good governance has also become a top priority for the current Chinese leadership. Xi Jinping’s anti- corruption campaign, for example, is proving to be exemplary of the fight against defective governance, and the government is taking action to attain a well-ordered and harmonious society. Nevertheless, many would argue that Xi’s anti-corruption campaign is substantially about internal power struggles and to increase the one-party state.129 The government’s emphasis on corruption is, according to Daniel Bell, a great way to demonstrate how China wants to lead by example, but there is more to it as well. Bell asserts that it is important to reform the educational system in some ways and that changing the nature of the Party, even its name, can be a great way of redefining the government’s direction and objectives—not because it will become something Confucian, or solely a Chinese thing, but because the government must face the realities of the current era. Global interdependence is

127 Li, “Interview.” 128 Ibid. 129 See, for example, Kerry Brown, “The Anti-Corruption Struggle in Xi Jinping’s China: An Alternative Political Narrative,” Asian Affairs 49, no. 1 (2018); Samson Yuen, “Disciplining the Party: Xi Jinping’s Anti- Corruption Campaign and Its Limits,” China Perspectives 2014, no. 3 (2014). For an in-depth analysis of the first three years of Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, see Jon S.T. Quah, “Hunting the Corrupt “Tigers” and “Flies” in China: An Evaluation of Xi Jinping’s Anti-Corruption Campaign (November 2012 to March 2015),” Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 2015, no. 1 (2015).

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 197 inevitable, and the world is certainly interconnected. Therefore, strong cultural elements from other countries, especially Western ones, are having an impact on China and vice versa. Although Confucianism can play an important role in the future of Chinese politics, Bell doubts it is likely to be restored as the official guiding ideology.130 Throughout Xi’s rule, we have repeatedly seen the continuous emphasis on Marxism being the seed of Chinese economic success and the motor of China’s path towards modernisation. Today, China has become a model for many developed and underdeveloped nations due to its economic progress and strong military power. The economy and national security are two significant factors that modern nation-states generally assume are of assistance in developing a moderately well-off society; one that is functional for their own specific conditions. Throughout the twentieth century, Western models and values were the best option for developing nations. For instance, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States set the standards of what a modern nation should look or be like. Democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, and equal rights were cherished by the international community, and these all appeared to be of strategic importance for establishing good governance via democratic means. All these factors help to develop the economy by interposing laissez-faire economic activities, alongside boosting capitalist predispositions. The idea of more “freedom” and less government intervention became a superlative justification for Western values to be held in high esteem by the masses. Western values are neither pernicious nor universal, as such; and the same goes for Confucian or East Asian values. The point is that, unlike its Western contenders, China is not— or at least it claims not to be—forcibly imposing its values or beliefs upon other nations. It does, however, uses “soft power” to build and improve relations with other nations, but this is part of the inevitable result of global interdependence. Obviously, like most nations, China does not want to be left behind on the race for economic prosperity and political stability; and when necessary, it will use its influence and authority to compete against others by disguising its “hard” power as “soft.”

Confucianism in the Party’s Rhetoric

China’s rise to global power is a game-changer for international politics. It is uncertain how democracies will continue to develop in the coming decades, and although many developed democracies (liberal or not) appear to be performing relatively well, societies may still consider employing alternative systems of governance. For China to set an example of a harmonious society, its leadership must pay attention to diverse groups of experts ranging from economists and political theorists to environmental scientists and non-governmental organisations. Among any of these groups, Confucian literati and scholars of Confucianism have a vital role to play. Formal and informal dialogues between scholars and the Chinese government could serve to set practices and attitudes towards reshaping social order. The idea would be to advance a xiaokang society. Obviously, the influence of Confucianism or Confucian scholars over the CCP’s political agenda, at this point, is minimal.

130 Bell, “Interview.”

198 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

It can be argued that a reflective engagement between scholars and the government is necessary to fortify China’s domestic and international objectives. These kinds of dialogues and activities can help the Chinese government appreciate the benefits of both Western (including Marxist) and Confucian values so that the best out of both traditions can be used for improving the status quo of the country. There are interactions between scholars and reformers, but their dialogues are not quite systematic. Daniel A. Bell believes that direct dialogues are not necessary, but writings and other scholarly works could be influential—as well as political experiments at the local levels. Bell points out that the Communist Party School has encouraged dialogues between Confucian intellectuals (e.g. Chen Lai) and public officials for the possibility of using the Chinese classics as part of the training process. 131 In recent decades, the CCP has used Confucianism or Confucian notions in their political discourses. Is this because they want to further legitimise their actions and maintain popular support or because they are genuinely interested in (re)integrating Confucian tenets into the political realm of China? Whatever the case may be, some Confucian ideas are reverberating in contemporary Chinese political thought. Many people are not ready to openly evaluate the Party’s efforts to morally engage in virtuous dispositions for the purposes of refining the social and political conditions of the nation. In addition, they are even less comfortable with the idea that the CCP might intend to spread this commitment to the rest of the world. An observation made by Roger T. Ames is that people think too short-term:

Right now, there is a rising concern that the present government in China has become very ideological, and, on the other hand, I go to the Great Hall of the People and Xi Jinping gives a speech where he says that the future of China is rooted in its Confucian past and cites from all of the Confucian texts to make that argument.

He continues,

I see the present government in China as having to have a heavy hand to have a stable and indisputable structure in order to accomplish something that must be accomplished in order for China to be sustainable. So, I think the short-term look at China is that Confucianism is not making a difference. I think what we call China, is Confucianism what makes China distinctive. In the long-term, China will be drawing upon its Confucian values in order to re-shape its present social structure, its present economic structure. And given the increasing importance of China, given China’s projection into Africa, particularly into South America, China is going to have a great influence in the world in the coming decades. Not just financially and politically. Culturally!132

Confucianism is currently being reflected in the Party’s discourse, and although the ideological propaganda in China is still Marxist, and the latter is even a compulsory subject at universities, Confucianism has been allowed in the Great Hall of the People for nearly three decades as well

131 Ibid. 132 Ames, “Interview.”

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 199 as in university classrooms after the so-called “guoxue fever” of the mid-1990s. With the largest population in the world as of today, there is always the risk that domestic problems can spring up in China, so it is important for the government to regulate the actions of their cadre and institutions to assist with socio-political stability. As a result, the effects of government policy will be more visible in the long run, and it will be necessary for the CCP to have unswerving control of its internal activities. The Party has allowed Confucian elements to be included in their discourse, and at this point, it can only be hoped it will lead them to better ways of governance and gradually move towards their contentious aim of creating a xiaokang society. Today, China is experiencing a transitional period. The government is endeavouring to combat corruption, social turmoil, and economic instability, yet it still practices forms of authoritarianism and uses oppressive mechanism to enable political order. Nonetheless, it needs to be taken into account that a high degree of discipline and direction is sometimes necessary to fulfil the needs of the nation and to attempt to build a more prosperous society—like in the case of Singapore, for instance. Some scholars argue that China is trying its best to lead by example and to set a good model for other countries. For instance, Daniel A. Bell states that China’s influence has extended across continents, but unlike Western powers (e.g. France and the United States), he would not expect China to export their model by use of force, no matter how strong China becomes militarily and economically, as this “really goes against the grain of the culture.”133 The political objectives of China centre upon building a xiaokang society. As stated in the strategy project of the CCP called “The Four Comprehensives,” their first and primary strategy is to systematically build a xiaokang society.134 This Confucian term has been constantly appearing in the official political discourses of the CCP, and if China aims to build a moderately prosperous society, dialogues between the government and experts on Confucianism can deliver a paradigm for directing the nation towards social and political opulence. This way, the Party’s governing capacity could be strengthened to generate a more efficient political agenda to help ensure a brighter future.

The Confucian Alternative

The current Chinese leadership is aiming to reify the “Chinese characteristics” of its political system instead of simply emulating Western practices. For more than a century, Western models of policy and development have been preferred by underdeveloped nations. Today, these nations are turning eastward in order to learn from theoretical frameworks and political practices that can help their economies to thrive and their societies to be more resilient. Most Confucian civilisations experienced unanticipated economic growth during the late twentieth century, and as of today, their economies are still flourishing, and their multilateral relations seem to be improving.

133 Bell, “Interview.” 134 See “‘Four Comprehensives’ Wins Public Acclaim,” People’s Daily Online, February 27, 2015; “China’s Xi Jinping Unveils New ‘Four Comprehensives’ Slogans,” BBC News, February 25, 2015.

200 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

Aside from China and North Korea, East Asian nation-states practice democracy, but the cultural input gives the impression that Eastern democracies are enjoying much more affluence than Western liberal democracies—especially compared to the more underdeveloped ones. It is clearly time to devise some novel political theories that can aid to alleviate some of the major fears of the world.135 The world is evolving at such fast pace that the weaknesses or negative elements of current political models need to be eradicated; however, elites do tend to benefit from such models. Liberal democratic values are deeply ingrained in most societies of today’s world, and they have also fashioned contemporary politics. Although there is no doubt that several Western democracies are functioning well, there will always be room for improvement. Several scholars of Confucianism (both Chinese and non-Chinese) have many critics for their support and advocacy of the tradition. As of today, there is still a great deal of debate about the viability and appeal of Confucian discourse. Among these scholars, political philosophers and theorists—that present Confucianism as an alternative model to the Western one—are more prone to criticisms. 136 A Confucian-centric or Sino-centric discourse is obviously not the only alternative to the Western model. In fact, while several scholars point out that such discourses merely seek to oust Western domination and replace it with a China- dominated model, others assert it can play a significant, and perhaps positive, role in the way China will address political matters in the future.137 East Asian Confucian civilisations are on the rise. Consequently, an East Asian model may well be regarded as an improved alternative to the Western model. As stated by Tu Wei-ming, “The success of Confucian East Asia in becoming fully modernized without being thoroughly Westernized clearly indicates that modernization may assume different cultural forms.”138 Tu points out that “Confucian East Asia has provided an alternative model of modernization” for several Southeast Asian nations; in addition, just like in Confucian East Asia, he is certain that other regions and indigenous traditions worldwide “have the potential to develop their own alternatives to Western .”139 Tu also contemplates that “While many alternatives to Western modernism, such as Maoism and militant religious , have been disastrous for the imagined global community, the emergence of a plurality of modern forms

135 For example, carbon footprint, food and water security, domestic and international migration, natural resources scarcity, economic and financial volatility, social equity and gender parity, population increase, and political and corporate corruption, to name a few, are factors that need to be addressed by people in power. 136 For example, Daniel A. Bell is often criticised for expressing his appreciation of the Chinese political system. He argues that it has evolved into a political meritocracy and that political meritocracy is central to Chinese political culture—which is strongly influenced by Confucian ideas. Also, Bai Tongdong has been criticised for his judgements on democracy and Western liberalism. He suggests there exist alternative models to liberal democracy that can be found in ancient Chinese political thought. Both scholars find Confucianism to be an appealing ethical and political philosophy that can deepen our understanding of modernity and that some of its insights could be used as an alternative to the current models. 137 For debates on the implication of implementing Confucian-centric or Sino-centric models contemporarily, see Shaun Breslin, “Towards a Sino-Centric Regional Order? Empowering China and Constructing Regional Order(S),” in China, Japan and Regional Leadership in East Asia, ed. Christopher M. Dent (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008); Shu-Mei Shih, “The Concept of the Sinophone,” PMLA 126, no. 3 (2011); Andreas Bøje Forsby, “An End to Harmony? The Rise of a Sino-Centric China,” Political Perspectives 5, no. 3 (2011); Anna Sun, “The Politics of Confucianism in Contemporary China,” in Confucianism, a Habit of the Heart: Bellah, Civil Religion, and East Asia, ed. Philip J. Ivanhoe and Sungmoon Kim (State University of New York Press, 2016). 138 Wei-ming Tu, “Implications of the Rise of “Confucian” East Asia,” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (2000): 207. 139 Ibid., 207-08.

OVERSEAS CONFUCIAN DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 201 of life is a cause for celebration.”140 Clearly, Tu is not the only scholar who sees Confucianism as a potential alternative to Western models. Many Confucian enthusiasts have proposed alternatives to the Western models and other scholars have critically analysed such proposals.141 Even though a Confucian alternative might sound like an apologetic proposition, Confucianism today has the potential to act as a source of a values system for benefiting people on a global scale. The contemporary revival of Confucianism in China came along with the rise of the country as an emerging economic, political, and military power. Today, political actors around the world are showing far more interest in trying to understand the Asian giant than at any time in history. Correspondingly, as China and its neighbours are developing and structuring their countries and economies, there seems to be an opposite effect in the West. Although economically strong and politically powerful, the West of today is hardly in any condition to offer alternative models to the rest of the world. It is an era where the rise of the East symbolises the decline of the West. Many problems experienced by Western liberal democracies have appeared due to the kinds of socio-political and economic organisation they practice. Consequently, a values system based on contemporary interpretations of Confucianism could lead to the development of a more pragmatic and positive way of practicing politics and organising societies in order to serve the well-being of the people and to fashion a moderately prosperous global society.

Concluding Remarks

Developing a modern pragmatic political philosophy is an ambitious undertaking. It is nearly impossible to halt, adjust, or restructure the on-going processes of modernisation (especially those involving social, political, and economic forces) without strategic long-term planning. Numerous factors and synergetic collaborations amid governments, corporations, institutions, organisations, and individuals must be considered for positive and rational changes to take place. The discussion presented in this chapter suggests that contemporary overseas Confucian discourse may well be on its way to become an outlet for a novel political philosophy; one that combines Western and Confucian elements. The opinions and contributions of scholars in the field advocate for the harmonisation of civilisations. These scholars are not seeking to overshadow Western ideas altogether; instead, they see that many countries are increasingly interested in collaborating with Confucian East Asian nations to enhance their own status quo. Scholars of Confucianism are presenting the tradition as a viable alternative to certain Western drifts, and governments in East Asia, including the CCP, are taking steps to ameliorate the way

140 Ibid., 208. 141 See, for example, Roger T. Ames, “Rites as Rights: The Confucian Alternative,” in Human Rights and the World’s Religions, ed. Leroy S. Rouner (University of Notre Dame Press, 1988); Jiwei Ci, “The Confucian Relational Concept of the Person and Its Modern Predicament,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics 9, no. 4 (1999); Tan, Confucian Democracy: A Deweyan Reconstruction; Leigh Jenco, “How Should We Use the Chinese Past? Contemporary Confucianism, the ‘Reorganization of the National Heritage,’ and Non-Western Histories of Thought in a Global Age,” 16, no. 4 (2017); Stephen C. Angle, “The Future of Confucian Political Philosophy,” Comparative Philosophy 9, no. 1 (2018).

202 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM they organise their societies by bearing in mind key aspects of political forms of Confucianism. These, in exchange, can help them progress in various ways as the mid-twenty-first century approaches. It was also observed that the CCP has embedded several Confucian concepts into their political agenda. Such concepts are familiar to the Chinese ear, and all chosen words and phrases characterise virtuous ruling and the harmonisation of society. Therefore, the Party’s political rhetoric, if regarded this way, helps the government maintain control and power, preserve a certain level of legitimacy, and continue being the sole governing body of the nation. Moreover, the Confucian designation-neologisms presented here aim to combine specific politicised forms of Confucianism with current Western dominant ways of governing. By doing so, fresh politico-philosophical frameworks that include Confucian and non-Confucian elements can emerge. The general idea is to adapt those frameworks to the current conditions of each individual nation, so they can benefit from them. The question lies on their practicality and functionalism. Consequently, scholars commonly suggest that implementing such frameworks can be done by pitching proposals to their own academic peers and to government officials thus filtering this at different levels of society—especially through the education system. Another issue faced by the tradition is its lack of international recognition. Confucianism is often regarded as a set of beliefs that has no import to contemporary matters; nevertheless, with the current rise of China, the tradition is increasingly being welcomed by the international community. Part of this gesture has a lot to do with the overarching need by governments worldwide to understand East Asian civilisations, particularly China. In this sense, the academic contributions of overseas scholars of Confucianism (e.g. publications, conference participation, lectures, etc.) play a significant role in allowing the tradition to be more widely known and recognised as one of the pillars of Chinese philosophy and as the backbone of East Asian civilisations. Finally, many Confucian scholars, in addition to Chinese government officials, observe that reviving politicised forms of Confucianism in twenty-first-century China could serve to empower a xiaokang society. China’s transition to a market economy not only brought financial affluence to the country and the region, it has also allowed for scientific and technological advancements to take place. Aiming for a moderately prosperous society suggests that people will benefit from having access to essential goods and services such as free (or affordable) education and healthcare. At the same time, ideas of progress shall be accentuated allowing society to enjoy a better quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This research project has examined the discourse of a selection of scholars identified here as “overseas scholars of Confucianism” (haiwai ruxue xuezhe 海外儒學學者). Their interpretations of the Confucian tradition are crucial to the development of modern Confucianism; the latter is something which is often attributed to the various generations of New Confucian scholars. There are no other works that unify and examine contemporary overseas Confucian discourse in the way this study does, and a unique approach to discourse deconstruction was taken in order to point out several items related to the global spread and contemporary significance of Confucianism. Although the interests and objectives of the scholars vary widely, one common feature found among most of their discourses was that they intend to use Confucianism in a constructive and fruitful manner in order to make improvements in present-day social and political affairs. In addition, their philosophical inputs are well worth the attention of a wider audience. It has been established that their interpretations offer a set of promising resources that can help with creating innovative ways of organising society and politics—for instance, by using Confucianism to reform the education system, to train government officials, and to shift people’s focus from individualism to role ethics. The hermeneutic analysis assisted the formulation of observations about whether their ideas and opinions are useful, pertinent, and valuable for a contemporary context. There were also some observations on how the Confucian tradition is being interpreted, by whom, and for which purposes in order to help see whether it is possible to produce a novel and pragmatic political philosophy containing both Confucian and non-Confucian elements. At the current stage of development of modern Confucianism, it is too early to jump to the conclusion that it will have the same influence on Chinese society and politics as the previous two epochs (classical Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism). Nevertheless, New Confucianism is evolving at a rapid pace, and as long as scholars continue their efforts to make it a living tradition, the evidence does indicate that Confucianism will become substantially important for the advancement of Sinitic societies. As it has been demonstrated in the study, scholars are pushing for this tradition to have contemporary relevance, but in addition to this, government bodies, non-profit organisations, and corporations are re-assessing some of its components in order to ameliorate the human condition. It is hoped that the information presented in this work will help people to gain a general overview of the development and evolution of Confucianism at the turn of the millennium. History demonstrates that Confucianism is capable of moulding and adapting itself to the socio- political practices of any given time and epoch. So, it is important to have a clear idea of the intellectual discussions of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism because these opinions are vital for developing a discourse that is able of effectively demonstrating the present-day usefulness and suitability of the tradition, as well as its implications for the future.

Assessing the Findings

203

204 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

In order to disclose the formation of overseas Confucian discourse, a brief account of the evolution of the tradition was presented. This included a discussion of how the latest school of Confucianism (i.e. New Confucianism) was divided into generations of scholars. With a few exceptions, the community of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism do not fall into any of the existing generational divisions. To begin with, the scholar’s backgrounds and motivations were examined. It was important to assess the environment, education, and upbringing of the scholars, and to consider what motivated them to immerse themselves in Confucian studies or Chinese traditional philosophy in order to provide a better picture of the objects directly experienced by these individuals. Consequently, a more fruitful account of their awareness or worldviews and interpretations was made available. Their preliminary engagements with the Confucian tradition were disclosed, and their cultural environments considered. In this study, the scholars were divided into culturally and non-culturally Confucian scholars in order to distinguish those who were born and raised in Confucian societies or brought up by culturally Confucian parents from those who were not. Moreover, their academic associations, alongside some of their various meaningful life experiences, have played an important part on their career choices and in the way they matured as scholars. Not all overseas scholars had a direct student-teacher relationship with earlier New Confucians; those who did not, however, were indirectly influenced by their thought or works. The transmission and adoption of the ru tradition has traditionally been regarded, and still is regarded, as an essential component of Confucianism. In the past, Confucianism was often transmitted by Confucian literati to students attending Confucian academies or traditional schools. But today, the adoption or acquisition of the ru tradition is more likely to happen in modern institutions of higher education.1 Therefore, the role of the scholars of Confucianism is imperative for the continuation of the tradition and for maintaining the existence of the student-teacher relationship by means of handing down ancient wisdom to those wishing to embrace it. Overseas scholars are disseminating Confucianism and thus expanding the so-called “third wave” of the tradition. One thing that was made clear in this study was that Confucian scholarship is no longer confined to scholars of Chinese origins. Overseas scholars, regardless of their origin, are taking into consideration aspects of the tradition that could be adaptable to both Confucian and non-Confucian societies. Their aim is to find consensus among civilisations because of the inevitable cultural convergence prompted by our latest international relationships and by the contingencies of globalisation. Moreover, the Chinese government is also taking steps to promote traditional Chinese culture domestically by organising and attending ceremonies on Confucius and by including Confucian elements in their political discourses; as well as internationally through hundreds of Confucian Institutes that promote Chinese language, culture, and traditions.

1 This assertion is made because the most prominent Confucian scholars or scholars of Confucianism teach or work at universities or research institutes. However, several Confucian academies or schools of classical learning have emerged in recent decades.

CONCLUSION 205

Contemporary overseas Confucian discourse offers an extensive range of comparative studies. It is a fairly recent philosophical movement which tries to make the teachings of Confucius and his subsequent followers available to a wider range of audiences. To make it easier for those interested in learning about the tradition and its current “overseas” interpreters, this study provides a description of who falls under the “overseas” label, explains what it is meant by it, and shows what type of topics are currently being discussed as well as the deeper purposes underlying such discussions. Due to several limitations, such as time restrictions and the unwillingness or unavailability of some scholars to participate in this project, it was virtually impossible to include the opinions and ideas of all individuals that fall under the overseas label. Thus, only a selected group of people were shortlisted for this research project. One of the main challenges while examining their discourses was to determine which concepts, ideas, or quotes (verbal and written) should have been included or excluded in this study. As a result, mainly key perspectives emphasising social and political matters (but not limited to education, culture, theology, philosophy, and so on) were illustrated and examined for a general overview of contemporary overseas Confucianism.

The Necessity of Deconstructing the Discourse

A deconstructive analysis of the discourse of overseas scholars of Confucianism was conducted to help understand their hermeneutic approaches and to help examine, via logical discussion, the ideas and opinions behind what they have said or written. This was not specifically done in a word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase manner, but rather, on a discourse-by-discourse basis. In other words, as depicted in this study, each scholar’s discourse, namely a singular discourse, becomes a necessary tool for crafting or improving the Confucian discourse, i.e. the aggregate discourse. Hence, by including a mixture of opinions from diverse points of view—while bearing in mind some of the more important interdisciplinary subject matters—it was possible to establish that each individual is helping, in their own unique way, to shape and balance out modern Confucian discourse. The continuity of the tradition is very much dependent upon present-day scholarly contributions. Contemporary overseas Confucian discourse eliminates geographical boundaries, combining Confucian and non-Confucian elements, in order to make the tradition adaptable at a global scale. Confucianism has experienced three main ideological shifts during the course of its existence. Because of this, an assessment of these shifts was presented so as to provide the reader with a clear idea of the nature and historical development of Confucian discourse. By contemplating these ideological shifts, it was observed that scholars are utilising ancient and pre-modern Confucian theoretical and socio-political concepts to make the tradition truly pertinent today. Several methods were taken into consideration in order to deconstruct the discourses. For instance, archaeology and genealogy were used on the basis of their embedded function in order to question the power of discourse at specific points in time. With these two facets of discourse analysis, the origins of a specific discourse—whether singular or aggregate in character—can be traced, its formation discussed and scrutinised, and its impact on social and

206 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM cultural constructs measured. Moreover, rhetoric and pragmatics were fundamental tools for portraying an understanding of certain persuasive elements and other implicit meanings that were found in the discourses of the overseas scholars interviewed here. Many ideas presented by the discourse elaborator are alleged to be true, and so these propositions might end up becoming unintentionally persuasive arguments. Because of this, rhetoric and pragmatics served as helpful means of devising the purposes behind their discourses, and how these were constructed. They were also helpful tools for uncovering and disclosing the meanings and intentions of the language at multiple levels. The study also featured the practice of parrhesia used by scholars as a way of disclosing the dialectics behind their discourses. Commonly translated as “frank speech” or “speaking frankly,” parrhesia is fundamental for the examination of ethico-political discourses. A parrhesiastes is someone who practices parrhesia; this means that he or she openly discloses the truth or talks frankly and honestly, without fear of being criticised or prosecuted by those in positions of power. It was observed that many overseas scholars do practice mild forms of parrhesia since they occasionally reveal aspects of the Confucian tradition that go against the decrees of the Chinese Communist Party (or against certain wider social, cultural, and political standards). Also, the use of parrhesia is seen in their criticisms of others’ discourses or opinions. For example, several scholars have stated that China will be better off by democratising its system through a Confucian lens; many proclaim that the CCP inconspicuously focuses on retaining the authoritarian forms of Confucianism in order to uphold their power or to strengthen their legitimacy; others argue that the Party is making itself into the Confucian Party; and some suggest that the re-appropriation of Confucianism by the Party is an attempt to veil the cultural annihilation once prompted by the Party itself. These and similar declarations are severely criticised by other academics. As a result, there is a risk that the Chinese government could take away some of the privileges such scholars are enjoying (e.g. budget reduction, downgrade of position, job loss, etc.) if their discourses do not provide positive feedback to government policy; especially for the scholars in mainland China. Parrhesia is an important element of Confucian discourse. Scholars do not simply flatter Confucianism for the sake of it; they depict what they allege to be true and useful. Overseas scholars do not merely try to speak truth to power in China, for they also engage in a wide range of discussions to help identify the downsides of current dominant cultural, social, and political constructs or ideologies. However, as depicted in this study, the scholars are not merely criticising policy or ideologies as a way of making Confucianism more palatable to their audiences or the masses. Instead, they do specify the downsides while trying to make sensible proposals of some Confucian tenets that are capable of functioning as better alternatives. The core of the study was the investigation and exposition of the truth of opinions behind the interpretations scholars have made of the Confucian tradition by way of a discourse deconstruction. Examining the dialectical hermeneutics of contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism generates a discursive dilemma, namely the Realproblematik of hermeneutics. This can be regarded as a limitation, to some extent, when hermeneutically deconstructing a discourse. Interpreting a discourse creates a continual ad infinitum effect since the discourse that is being interpreted is subject to the previous interpretations of the topic that is being discussed. Any given discourse is dependent or partially conditional on someone else’s

CONCLUSION 207 previous interpretations on a given topic; these, in turn, are taken and interpreted, thereby composing a new singular discourse. The newly created discourse, nevertheless, is either dependent on or likely to be affected by numerous phenomenological factors. This study has taken account of the latter in order to provide a better account of each scholar’s views and interpretations.

Devising a Confucian-inspired Critical Theory

As a pragmatic philosophy, Confucianism aims to identify and alleviate the social and political complications experienced by human beings. For this reason, postmodernism and poststructuralism were used as tools for conducting a discourse analysis; they both enable a critical attitude towards the structures permeating language as well as towards the influence discourse has in modern socio-political contexts. By taking these two as the theoretical frameworks, a discourse deconstruction was facilitated. The study revealed the main cultural, philosophical, and socio-political dilemmas Confucianism faces in the eyes of the world; it examined the feasibility and practicality of the core values of the tradition; and some key characteristics of the ways China is refashioning its cultural identity were also identified. To conduct a more comprehensive discourse deconstruction, the backgrounds, motivations, influences, meaningful experiences, and a whole range of thought processes of these scholars were considered. The study focused on the political and philosophical aspects of their discourses, and by using a combination of different analytical approaches—including dialectical-hermeneutics, phenomenology, and critical discourse analysis—a sort of critical theory was produced. In addition, these methods were supplemented with other systematic and practical tools (i.e. archaeology, genealogy, parrhesia, rhetoric, pragmatics, and the Realproblematik of hermeneutics) to provide the reader with a critical and more in-depth account of each scholar’s discourses, and how they are a contribution to (and a crucial part of) modern Confucian discourse. A critical theory investigates the ways in which social groups (or nations) are oppressed, and because of numerous factors, people live in dissimilar and inequitable societies. In other words, one system does not fit all. As we have seen from the past two centuries, East Asian nations borrowed Western political thought and ideologies in order to craft “modern” nation- states and to comply with the intricacies of modernisation. However, they have also accommodated these to and supplemented them with their own characteristics. Nonetheless, these characteristics are twofold: on the one hand, they made them applicable to the circumstances and necessities of their time; on the other hand, they were fashioned to their own cultural environments, which are heavily rooted in the Confucian tradition, to make them resonate with their own peoples. The proposed critical theory in this study presents contemporary interpretations of Confucian political philosophy as a complementary alternative to Western political philosophy. Confucianism does not necessarily oppose modern political philosophies based on Western thought, but it is intended to supplement them. Western ideologies used to be closely circumscribed in accordance with the given necessities and conditions of the leading Western societies. And, although Western models have gradually become more inclusive due to their

208 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM overwhelming tendency towards expansion, most of the Global South and other developing nations had no other choice but to adjust to them. As a consequence, Western-grounded social and political constructs and institutions govern worldwide. Critical theories are normative, in the sense that they do try to bring about positive changes to social and political conditions that have a negative effect on people’s lives. Thus, since Confucianism does exercise a profound influence over much of the world, taking into consideration a Confucian-inspired political philosophy—and relating it to the dominant theories that reverberate in today’s world—might be one way to enable a more comprehensive and practical way of dealing with the problems experienced by Eastern and Western societies and by both the Global North and South. For instance, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have traditionally been (and are still being) directed towards or guided by Western constructs and ideologies, but they could largely benefit from embracing alternative socio-political ideas as well. Instead of simply following Western models, they could create their own models and supplement these with an East Asian one, if desirable, while incorporating the best elements out of both. Subsequently, countries of these regions could work towards forming or shaping a more stable system of governance with their own idiosyncratic “characteristics.” The idea here would be to benefit their societies by observing and addressing their own individual necessities and circumstances. A Confucian-inspired critical theory can help with uncovering the underlying oppressive forces modern societies are experiencing. And this is not an invitation to devise an inclusive, ideal global society because the interests and circumstances of each individual, family, community, and nation vary. A fundamental aspect of critical theory is that knowledge empowers; therefore, emphasising the most common ethical values at different levels of society—something that Confucianism aims to do—can further assist people to recognise their distinct social roles and to be more tolerant to others. At the same time, people will become more aware of the broader existing states of affairs that have negative effects in their societies (and the world) rather than simply focusing on egotistic behaviours and their personal wellbeing.

Measuring the Practicality of Confucianism

The Confucian philosophy tends to act as a guiding principle for pragmatically addressing social and political matters, but many of its features are either unsuitable for today’s world or else viewed as outdated by the masses. For this reason, this study uncovered the main challenges and difficulties overseas scholars face at the time of interpreting Confucian texts, and the areas they consider to be reasonably applicable. Learning or interpreting (traditional) Chinese language and characters, taking the time to study the complexity of Confucian classics, and indicating the usefulness and applicability of the tradition in a modern context were all found to be some of the main obstacles they encountered. It was also established that if the scholars want their ideas to be heard and the tradition to be continued, giving Confucianism contemporary relevance is of indispensable importance. Scholars have been trying to keep up with and adjust their discourses in accordance with the successive and progressive transformations China and the rest of the world have recently

CONCLUSION 209 experienced. In the 1980s, Confucian scholarship took a turning point. This period was a game changer for the greater community of Confucian scholars since the Communist Party actually allowed academic discussions of the tradition to take place in the country. In keeping with this fact, the study undertaken here discussed the opinions of overseas scholars regarding the development of post-Cultural Revolution Confucian discourse, as these are able to help us appreciate the continuity and progress of the Confucian tradition. Furthermore, some reflections on the relevance of Confucianism and on the preservation of the legacy and teachings of Confucius are made available to the reader. These were presented by showing the efforts of the scholars and the steps Chinese government officials are taking in order to relate and use this tradition in a manner both successful and expedient for the current state of affairs. By examining the role scholars play in preserving the tradition, it was established that reviving certain Confucian tenets and incorporating them at different levels of society, culture, politics, and the education system, for example, are progressive ways of giving life to Confucianism in a contemporary context. It was also noted that at the time of producing their literary works, the intentions, aims, and methods of the scholars did vary. Some scholars are directing their works to specific audiences while others prefer to only engage in an intellectual journey to increase their knowledge and understandings of the Confucian and other Asian traditions. As observed in this research project, many literary contributions of the overseas scholars of Confucianism are political in character. Although some might focus on cultural, philosophical, or theological aspects of the tradition, these are inseparable from social and political concerns. To reiterate, Confucianism is a humanistic and pragmatic philosophy that is intended to improve the overall existing state of affairs of human beings; starting from and placing an emphasis on the individual, moving up to his or her relationships with others, and ultimately, to the intangible cosmogonic nature of the myriad things.2 In this study, it was noted that many overseas scholars of Confucianism tend to focus on political and philosophical elements of the tradition that can be readily adapted in today’s world. In recent decades, the Chinese government has borrowed bits and pieces from Confucianism. The scholars interviewed have generally agreed that after Deng Xiaoping rose to power, the Party’s mode of governance underwent some drastic changes. The government was expected to comply with modern global organisations and socio-political systems; thus, the Party began to shift its own ways of organising politics through “perfecting” or modernising the political system. Consequently, by looking into the views of these scholars, it was established that “Confucianising” the politics of the Communist Party (e.g. by incorporating Confucian terms or phrases into their discourse or by acknowledging Confucianism as a fundamental part of

2 One of the terms used to explain the correlative interdependence between the natural cosmos and human beings is tianren heyi 天人合一, which can be roughly translated as the “unity of Heaven and humanity.” Heaven, or better phrased as “anything beyond the mundane physical realm,” is an ultimate metaphysical constant and underlying principle that reigns the natural order of the myriad things—something that can be observed in the yin-yang cosmology and the wisdom of the dao. Therefore, Heaven was and can still be taken as an inspiration by people to become exemplary persons. Confucius said, “Heaven created virtue in me,” Neo- Confucian scholar Cheng Hao insisted that the benevolent person is one with all of Heaven and earth and the myriad things (renzhe yi tiandi wanwu wei yiti 仁者以天地萬物為一體), and today, contemporary New Confucian scholar Tu Wei-ming regards the relationship between human beings and Heaven as an “anthropocosmic unity.”

210 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM

China’s cultural and national identity) has helped to develop legislative frameworks devoted to the welfare of the people. Such frameworks certainly align well with the socialist and communist agendas the Communist Party of China praises and that they are claiming to uphold. Furthermore, the academic input of scholars is of great importance for developing a pragmatic political philosophy containing Confucian tenets—this obviously does not entail excluding other modern or contemporary non-Confucian ideas. If experts on Confucianism direct their work to people in a position of power, or act or train individuals as political advisors, the results can be progressively productive. The study revealed that scholars are not merely criticising the Chinese government nor other forms of public administration that are based on Western thought. They are focusing on useful elements of the tradition in order to bring about changes in a way that China, other culturally Confucian societies, and the rest of the world are ultimately capable of benefiting from. Their expertise in the field suggests that they are capable of providing a reasonable account of various alternative options to some of today’s faulty socio- political constructs. Their willingness to make Confucianism a pragmatic political philosophy undoubtedly represents a strenuous attempt to complement current political dictums in an objective manner (e.g. through wisdom-based education, focusing on the welfare of society, and inculcating virtuous ruling from the lowest to the highest levels of government). A few political theories grounded on the efforts of the scholars to use Confucianism in a modern context are presented in this study. These are labelled as designation-neologisms. These theories suggest unique ways of approaching and politically employing certain elements pertaining to the Confucian tradition through a modern lens. The study has also disclosed the internationalisation of the doctrine. Several remarks have been made on how overseas scholars act as transmitters of Confucianism at a large scale; they are the ones who show the global community what this tradition is about through their translations, lectures, literary works, and broader interpretations. Most agree that Confucianism does not and will not clash with other civilisations. On the contrary, Confucianism is being internationally recognised, especially in academic circles, as a set of beliefs or doctrines that is equally significant, or even superior, to mainstream Western philosophies. The study ends with a section asserting that several Confucian concepts currently appear in the political rhetoric of the Communist Party of China as part of their attempts to create a society that is both harmonious and moderately well-off. The latter notion of a xiaokang society is a term that has been widely used by Confucian intellectuals since the time of Confucius up until the current century. The opinions expressed by scholars regarding the Party’s appropriation of Confucian language suggest that with China’s economy on the rise, and numerous technological advancements alongside it, the Asian giant is on its way to become a role model for other developed and developing nations. It is finally concluded that by producing a political agenda that incorporates Confucian elements, the subjects of this thesis argue that it is possible to come up with a constructive and progressive approach for responding to the ever- changing social and political conditions of nations worldwide. As stated earlier, overseas scholars of Confucianism do not intend to replace the predominant existing Western models of governance with a Confucian one. The dialectical hermeneutics of contemporary overseas Confucian discourse disclosed in this study serve the purposes of elaborating upon and expounding the pragmatic benefits of an ancient

CONCLUSION 211 philosophical tradition; one that aims to promote altruistic behaviours through self-cultivation and through the establishment of authentic and righteous ways of leading the people.

Recommendations and Future Implications

One recommendation is that the contemporary school of overseas Confucianism should be included as part of the New Confucian movement that originated nearly a century ago. Modern Confucianism will largely benefit from overseas and New Confucian discourses because the former will potentially set the stage for more dynamic intellectual discussions and debates among scholars; and more importantly, it will reduce tensions among all these. Although most of the overseas scholars do not fall under the New Confucian label, their scholarship is every bit as remarkable. In addition, more translations and novel interpretations are required. So, the only reason for splitting up overseas and mainland Confucian scholarship would be for the purposes of seeing how both discourses might eventually converge as part of the aggregate discourse initiated by the earliest New Confucian scholars about a century ago. Without a doubt, it will be interesting to distinguish where both sides of the discourses will be directed; to discover how they intend to make Confucianism pragmatic in character; and to appreciate the diverse interpretations these scholars have made at different points in time. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, there will be an inevitable convergence of overseas and mainland Confucian scholarship. Neither one party nor the other ought to look down on alternative interpretations from their opposite counterparts. This does not mean to avoid academic criticisms and sophisticated assessments; on the contrary, these are only to be expected. And it is quite likely that in less than a century or two, the most prominent scholars of today will reach a comparable recognition to that of eminent intellectuals including James Legge, or Richard Wilhelm, or Xiong Shili, or Liang Shuming on account of their contributions to Chinese or Confucian studies. Politically speaking, both sides of the discourse aim to demonstrate the ups and downs of using Confucianism as an alternative to modern political philosophies. Thanks to the contributions of overseas scholars, Confucianism is gaining worldwide acceptance and recognition; hence, it can be implied that a sort of novel New Confucian movement has emerged. Modern interpretations of Confucianism can be used in a wide range of contexts in order to extract some positive and applicable elements of the tradition for the purposes of ameliorating the human condition. Confucianism is not a comprehensive political philosophy that is somehow capable of solving all the world’s problems, but contemporary interpretations may still lead people towards generating a pragmatic one. More research and a better understanding of Confucianism are necessary to help see if the latter can indeed be successfully used to regulate the behaviours of the people, improve social order, and increase the governing competencies of the people in power. Scholars seeking to pragmatise a tradition that originated more than two thousand years ago are obliged to take into account the continuous state of evolution of human beings in an ever-changing world. It is hoped that this modest contribution to the field of Confucian studies will allow others to have a general overview of what constitutes present-day overseas Confucian discourse. This work has attempted to provide an extensive account of the main ideas, opinions, influences,

212 OVERSEAS SCHOLARS OF CONFUCIANISM lived experiences, and hermeneutical thinking of major overseas scholars of Confucianism, so that others may use it and so that this work may also complement any further research on Confucian studies. Many of the declarations from the scholars presented in this study have not been disclosed in an academic context up to now; therefore, some new knowledge has been made available here. In addition, this work can also be used by a wide range of students and scholars for the purposes of developing suitable frameworks of discourse deconstruction in their specific fields or disciplines. This thesis has gauged the intellectual influence contemporary overseas scholars of Confucianism have and the future importance of their discourse in terms of developing an ethical and political philosophy with Confucian characteristics in China and abroad.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Joseph A. Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi’s Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi. State University of New York Press, 2014. Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an Investigation.” Translated by Ben Brewster. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 127–86: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Ames, Roger T. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (July 27, 2015), Beijing, China. ———. “Rites as Rights: The Confucian Alternative.” In Human Rights and the World’s Religions, edited by Leroy S. Rouner: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Ames, Roger T., and David L. Hall. Focusing the Familiar: A Translation and Philosophical Interpretation of the Zhongyong. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001. Ames, Roger T., and Peter D. Hershock. “Introduction to Special Issue Commemorating the Establishment of the World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures.” International Communication of Chinese Culture 3, no. 4 (2016): 543-47. ———. “Special Issue: The World Consortium for Research in Confucian Cultures.” Philosophy East and West 66, no. 3 (2016). Ames, Roger T., and Henry Rosemont, Jr. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. Ballantine Books, 2010. Angle, Stephen C. “Binswagner Interview: Professor Steve Angle.” By Karen Alshanetsky (January 10, 2017), United States. ———. Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy. Polity Press, 2012. ———. “The Future of Confucian Political Philosophy.” Comparative Philosophy 9, no. 1 (2018). ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 11, 2016), Singapore/United States. ———. Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2009. Bai, Tongdong. “Back to Confucius: A Comment on the Debate on the Confucian Idea of Consanguineous Affection.” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 27-33. ———. “A Confucian Version of Hybrid Regime: How Does It Work and Why Is It Superior.” Prajna Vihara 13, no. 1-2 (2012): 39-74. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (June 27, 2015), Beijing, China. ———. “An Old Mandate for a New State: On Jiang Qing’s Political Confucianism.” Translated by Edmund Ryden. In A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future, edited by Daniel A. Bell and Ruiping Fan: Princeton University Press, 2012. BBC News. “China’s Xi Jinping Unveils New ‘Four Comprehensives’ Slogans.” www.bbc.com, February 25, 2015. Beijing Review. “Communiqué of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.” www.bjreview.com, October 23, 2014. Bell, Daniel A. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2015. ———. China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society. Princeton University Press, 2008. ———. “The Chinese Confucian Party?” The Globe and Mail, www.theglobeandmail.com, February 19, 2010. ———. “The Confucian Party.” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com, May 11, 2009. ———. “From Marx to Confucius: Changing Discourses on China’s Political Future.” Dissent 54, no. 2 (2007): 20-28.

213

214 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (July 28, 2015), Beijing, China. ———. “A Visit to a Confucian Academy.” Dissent, www.dissentmagazine.org, September 22, 2008. Benavides, R. L. “This Is a Sample Paper Confucius for Non-Confucians: Understanding China from “Without”.” In Competition and Cooperation in Social and Political Sciences, edited by Isbandi Rukminto Adi and Rochman Achwan, 131-39: Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. Berlin, Isaiah. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press, 1969. Berthrong, John. “From Beijing to Boston: The Future Contributions of the Globalization of New Confucianism.” In Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, edited by Fenggang Yang and Joseph B. Tamney: Brill, 2011. Berthrong, John H. All under Heaven: Transforming Paradigms in Confucian-Christian Dialogue. State University of New York Press, 1994. Berthrong, John H., and Jeffrey L. Richey. “Introduction: Teaching Confucianism as a Religious Tradition.” In Teaching Confucianism, edited by Jeffrey L. Richey: Oxford University Press, 2008. Billioud, Sébastien. “Confucianism, “Cultural Tradition” and Official Discourses in China at the Start of the New Century.” China Perspectives, no. 3 (2007). Billioud, Sébastien, and Joël Thoraval. The Sage and the People: The Confucian Revival in China. Oxford University Press, 2015. Birdwhistell, Anne D. Li Yong (1627-1705) and Epistemological Dimensions of Confucian Philosophy. Stanford University Press, 1996. Bohman, James. “Critical Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu, March 8, 2005. Bresciani, Umberto. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (June 22, 2016), Taipei, Taiwan. ———. Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement. Taipei Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies, 2001. Breslin, Shaun. “Towards a Sino-Centric Regional Order? Empowering China and Constructing Regional Order(S).” In China, Japan and Regional Leadership in East Asia, edited by Christopher M. Dent, 131-55: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008. Brown, Kerry. “The Anti-Corruption Struggle in Xi Jinping’s China: An Alternative Political Narrative.” Asian Affairs 49, no. 1 (February 15, 2018): 1-10. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. Can Confucianism Save the World?: Reflections by Three Contemporary Political Thinkers, May 15, 2014. Chan, Wing-tsit. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 1963. Chang, Carsun. The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought. Bookman Associates, 1957. Chen, Lai. The Core Values of Chinese Civilization. Translated by Paul J. D’Ambrosio, Robert Carleo III, Chad Meyers and Joanna Guzowska. Springer, 2017. ———. ““Ru”: Xunzi’s Thoughts on Ru and Its Significance.” Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4, no. 2 (2009): 157-79. ———. Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View. Brill’s Humanities in China Library. Brill, 2009. ———. “Virtue Ethics and Confucian Ethics.” In Virtue Ethics and Confucianism, edited by Stephen C. Angle and Michael A. Slote: Routledge, 2013. Chen, Yong. Confucianism as Religion: Controversies and Consequences. Brill, 2012. Cheng, Anne. “Chair of Chinese Intellectual History.” La Lettre du Collège de France (2009). ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (November 17, 2015), Paris, France. ———. Les Entretiens de Confucius. Éditions du Seuil, 1981. Cheng, Chung-ying. “The ‘C’ Theory: A Chinese Philosophical Approach to Management and Decision-Making.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy, no. 19 (1992): 125-53.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

———. “Confucian Ethics in Modernity: Ontologically Rooted, Internationally Resposive, and Integratively Systematic.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 40, no. Special Theme (2013): 76-98. ———. “Developing Confucian onto-Ethics in a Postmodern World/Age.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37, no. 1 (2010): 3-17. ———. “General Introduction.” In Hermeneutical Thinking in Chinese Philosophy, edited by Lauren F. Pfister: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (June 18, 2015), Beijing, China. ———. New Dimensions of Confucian and Neo-Confucian Philosophy. State University of New York Press, 1991. Cheng, Chung-ying, and Nicholas Bunnin, eds. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Ching, Julia. “Truth and Ideology: The Confucian Way (Tao) and Its Transmission (Tao- T’ung).” Journal of the History of Ideas 35, no. 3 (1974): 371-88. Chong, Kim-chong, Sor-hoon Tan, and C. L. Ten, eds. The Moral Circle and the Self: Chinese and Western Approaches: Open Court Publishing, 2003. Chung, Edward Y. J. Korean Confucianism: Tradition and Modernity. The Academy of Korean Studies Press, 2015. Ci, Jiwei. “The Confucian Relational Concept of the Person and Its Modern Predicament.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics 9, no. 4 (1999): 325-46. Dallmayr, Fred. Integral Pluralism: Beyond Culture Wars. University Press of Kentucky, 2010. De Bary, William Theodore, and JaHyun Kim Haboush, eds. The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea: Columbia University Press, 1985. De Bary, Wm. Theodore, and Irene Bloom. Sources of Chinese Tradition: Volume 1: From Earliest Times to 1600. Second ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1: Columbia University Press, 1999. Dessein, Bart. “Yearning for the Lost Paradise: The “Great Unity” (datong) and Its Philosophical Interpretations.” Asian studies 5, no. 1 (2017): 83-102. Dirlik, Arif. “The National Learning Revival.” China Perspectives Special Issue, no. 1 (2011). Fan, Ruiping. “Consanguinism, Corruption, and Humane Love: Remembering Why Confucian Morality Is Not Modern Western Morality.” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 21-26. Feng, Youlan. A History of Chinese Philosophy. Translated by Derk Bodde. Henri Vetch, 1937. Fish, Stanley. Professional Correctness: Literary Studies and Political Change. Oxford University Press, 1995. Forsby, Andreas Bøje. “An End to Harmony? The Rise of a Sino-Centric China.” Political Perspectives 5, no. 3 (2011): 5-26. Foucault, Michel. Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. Routledge Classics, 2002. ———. The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981-1982. Translated by Graham Burchell. Edited by Frédéric Gros, François Ewald, and Alessandro Fontana: Macmillan, 2005. Fukuyama, Francis. “Confucianism and Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 6, no. 2 (1995): 20-33. ———. “The End of History?”. The National Interest, no. 16 (1989): 3-18. Galston, William A. Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2002. ———. “Two Concepts of Liberalism.” Ethics 105, no. 3 (1995): 516-34. Guo, Moruo. “Marx Enters the Confucian Temple.” Renditions 51 (1999): 77-86. Guo, Qiyong. “Is Confucian Ethics a “Consanguinism”?”. Dao 6, no. 1 (2007): 21-37. Hagen, Kurtis. “Xunzi’s Use of Zhengming: Naming as a Constructive Project.” Asian Philosophy 12, no. 1 (2002): 35-51.

216 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. The Democracy of the Dead: Dewey, Confucius, and the Hope for Democracy in China. Carus Publishing Company, 1999. ———. Thinking Through Confucius. State University of New York Press, 1987. Hood, Steven J. “The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy.” Asian Survey 38, no. 9 (1998): 853- 66. Horkheimer, Max. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Translated by M. J. O’Connell, et al.: Continuum Publishing Company, 1982. Hsiao, Kung-chuan. History of Chinese Political Thought, Volume One: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century A.D. Vol. 1: Princeton University Press, 1979. ———. Modern China and a New World: K’ang Yu-wei, Reformer and Utopian, 1858-1927. University of Washington Press, 1975. Huffington Post. “Confucius Statue Shows Up On China’s Tiananmen Square.” www.huffpost.com, January 14, 2011. Ivanhoe, Philip J. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 28, 2016), Hong Kong, China. Jacobs, Andrew. “Confucius Statue Vanishes Near Tiananmen Square.” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com, April 22, 2011. Jenco, Leigh. “How Should We Use the Chinese Past? Contemporary Confucianism, the ‘Reorganization of the National Heritage,’ and Non-Western Histories of Thought in a Global Age.” 16, no. 4 (2017): 450-69. Ji, Zhe. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (November 13, 2015), Paris, France. Kang, Chae-ŏn, and Jae-eun Kang. The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism. Translated by Suzanne Lee. Homa & Sekey Books, 2006. Kang, Xiaoguang. “A Study of the Renaissance of Traditional Confucian Culture in Contemporary China.” In Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, edited by Fenggang Yang and Joseph Tamney: Brill, 2012. Kim, Sungmoon. Confucian Democracy in East Asia: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2014. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 26, 2016), Hong Kong, China. ———. “Public Reason Confucianism: A Construction.” American Political Science Review 109, no. 1 (2015): 187-200. ———. Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia. Cambridge University Press, 2016. Kwang-ok, Kim. “The Reproduction of Confucian Culture in Contemporary Korea: An Anthropological Study.” In Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic Culture in Japan and Four Mini-Dragons, edited by Wei- ming Tu, 202-27: Harvard University Press, 1996. Lee, Ming-huei. Confucianism: Its Roots and Global Significance. Edited by David Jones: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2017. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (September 29, 2016), Taipei, Taiwan. Lee, Seung-hwan. A Topography of Confucian Discourse: Politico-Philosophical Reflections on Confucian Discourse since Modernity. Translated by Jaeyoon Song and Seung-hwan Lee. Homa & Sekey Books, 2006. Legge, James. The Chinese Classics: Confucian Analects, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean. Vol. 1: Trübner & Co., 1861. Levenson, Joseph R. Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: The Problem of Intellectual Continuity. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958. ———. Confucian China and Its Modern Fate: Volume III the Problem of Historical Significance. Routledge, 1965. ———. Liang Ch’i-Ch’ao and the Mind of Modern China. University of California Press, 1959.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

Li, Chenyang. “The Confucian Ideal of Harmony.” Philosophy East and West 56, no. 4 (2006): 583-603. ———. The Confucian Philosophy of Harmony. Routledge, 2014. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (August 14, 2015), Singapore. Licheng, Ma. Leading Schools of Thought in Contemporary China. World Scientific, 2016. Liu, Dong. “National Learning (Guoxue): Six Perspectives and Six Definitions.” In The National Learning Revival, edited by Arif Dirlik, 2011. Liu, Qingping. “Confucianism and Corruption: An Analysis of Shun’s Two Actions Described by Mencius.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6, no. 1 (2007): 1-19. ———. “Filiality Versus Sociality and Individuality: On Confucianism as “Consanguinitism”.” Philosophy East and West 53, no. 2 (2003): 234-50. Liu, Shu-hsien. “Contemporary Confucianism.” In The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy, edited by Jay L. Garfield and William Edelglass: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. Essentials of Contemporary Neo-Confucian Philosophy. Resources in Asian Philosophy and Religion. Praeger, 2003. Loy, Hui-chieh. “Analects 13.3 and the Doctrine of “Correcting Names”.” In Confucius Now: Contemporary Encounters with the Analects, edited by David Jones, 223-42: Open Court, 2008. Ma, Lin. “Beyond the Urge of Defense.” Dao 7, no. 2 (2008): 141-44. Makeham, John. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 14, 2016), Singapore/Australia. ———. Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse. Harvard University Press, 2008. ———. New Confucianism: A Critical Examination. Palgrave, 2003. ———. “The Revival of Guoxue: Historical Antecedents and Contemporary Aspirations.” China Perspectives 2011, no. 1 (2011): 14-21. Mattice, Sarah A. “On ‘Rectifying’ Rectification: Reconsidering Zhengming in Light of Confucian Role Ethics.” Asian Philosophy 20, no. 3 (2010): 247-60. Meissner, Werner. “China’s Search for Cultural and National Identity from the Nineteenth Century to the Present.” China Perspectives, no. 68 (2006). Mote, Frederick W. Imperial China 900-1800. Harvard University Press, 2003. Neville, Robert Cummings. Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World. State University of New York Press, 2000. ———. “Confucianism as a World Philosophy. Presidential Address for the 8th International Conference on Chinese Philosophy, Beijing, 1993.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 21, no. 1 (1994): 5-25. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (May 30, 2016), Singapore/United States. ———. Ritual and Deference: Extending Chinese Philosophy in a Comparative Context. State University of New York Press, 2008. ———. “Value and Selfhood: Pragmatism, Confucianism, and Phenomenology.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 42, no. 1-2 (2015): 197-212. Ni, Peimin. “Confucianism and Democracy: Water and Fire? Water and Oil? Or Water and Fish?”. In Polishing the Chinese Mirror: Essays in Honor of Henry Rosemont, Jr., edited by Marthe Chandler and Ronnie Littlejohn, 89-108: Global Scholarly Publications, 2007. ———. Confucius: The Man and the Way of Gongfu. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. ———. “Do Not Take Confucians as Kantians: Comments on Liu Qingping’s Interpretation of Confucian Teachings.” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 45-49. ———. “Gongfu—A Vital Dimension of Confucian Teaching.” In Confucius Now: Contemporary Encounters with the Analects, edited by David Jones: Open Court, 2008.

218 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Gongfu Method in the Analects and its Significance Beyond.” In The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, edited by Sor-hoon Tan: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016. ———. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 15, 2016), Singapore/United States. ———. Understanding the Analects of Confucius: A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations. State University of New York Press, 2017. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “First Essay: ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Good and Bad’.” Translated by Carol Diethe. In On the Genealogy of Morality, edited by Keith Ansell-Pearson. Cambridge Texts in the History of Poliitcal Thought: Cambridge University Press, 2006. People’s Daily Online. “‘Four Comprehensives’ Wins Public Acclaim.” http://en.people.cn, February 27, 2015. Pfister, Lauren F. “Interview.” By Rogelio Leal (April 25, 2016), Hong Kong, China. Philodemus. On Frank Criticism. Translated by David Konstan. Scholars Press, 1998. Pierce, Charles S. “What Pragmatism Is.” The Monist 15, no. 2 (April, 1905): 161-81. Quah, Jon S.T. “Hunting the Corrupt “Tigers” and “Flies” in China: An Evaluation of Xi Jinping’s Anti-Corruption Campaign (November 2012 to March 2015).” Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 2015, no. 1 (April, 2015). Rosemont, Jr., Henry. A Chinese Mirror: Moral Reflections on Political Economy and Society. Open Court, 1991. Rosemont, Jr., Henry, and Roger T. Ames. “Family Reverence (xiao) as the Source of Consummatory Conduct (ren).” In Confucian Role Ethics: A Moral Vision for the 21st Century?, 59-64: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. University of Chicago Press, 1985. Shih, Shu-Mei. “The Concept of the Sinophone.” PMLA 126, no. 3 (May, 2011): 709-18. Solé-Farràs, Jesús. New Confucianism in Twenty-First Century China: The Construction of a Discourse. Routledge, 2014. Sun, Anna. Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities. Princeton University Press, 2013. ———. “The Politics of Confucianism in Contemporary China.” In Confucianism, a Habit of the Heart: Bellah, Civil Religion, and East Asia, edited by Philip J. Ivanhoe and Sungmoon Kim, 85-98: State University of New York Press, 2016. Tamney, Joseph B., and Linda Hsueh-Ling Chiang. Modernization, Globalization, and Confucianism in Chinese Societies. Praeger Publishers, 2002. Tan, Sor-hoon. “Confucian Democracy as Pragmatic Experiment: Uniting Love of Learning and Love of Antiquity.” Asian Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2007): 141-66. ———. Confucian Democracy: A Deweyan Reconstruction. State University of New York Press, 2004. ———. “Democracy in Confucianism.” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 5 (2012): 293-303. ———. “Teaching & Learning Guide for: Democracy in Confucianism.” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 9 (2012): 665-68. ———. “Why Confucian Democracy?” In Varieties of Democracy. Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut: Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life, 2009. Tian, Chenshan. Chinese Dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism. Lexington Books, 2005. Tu, Wei-ming. Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness. State University of New York Press, 1989. ———. “Confucian Spirituality in Contemporary China.” In Confucianism and Spiritual Traditions in Modern China and Beyond, edited by Fenggang Yang and Joseph Tamney: Brill, 2011.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

———. Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation. State University of New York Press, 1985. ———. “Implications of the Rise of “Confucian” East Asia.” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (2000): 195- 218. ———. “Subjectivity and Ontological Reality: An Interpretation of Wang Yang-Ming’s Mode of Thinking.” Philosophy East and West 23, no. 1/2 (1973): 187-205. Van Dijk, Teun A. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, 352-71: Blackwell, 2001. Walzer, Michael. Interpretation and Social Criticism. Harvard University Press, 1993. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. Routledge, 2001. ———. The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism. Translated by Hans H. Gerth. Free Press, 1951. West, Thomas G. Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation, with a New Translation. Cambridge University Press, 1979. Wetherell, Margaret, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. Sage, 2001. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Second ed.: Sage, 2009. XinhuaNet. “China Focus: Evolution of “Gaokao” Essay Topics Mirrors Changes of China.” www.xinhuanet.com, June 7, 2017. Yao, Xinzhong. “Confucianism and Its Modern Values: Confucian Moral, Educational and Spiritual Heritages Revisited.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 20, no. 1 (1999): 30-40. ———. An Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Yu, Jiyuan. “The Practicality of Ancient Virtue Ethics.” In Virtue Ethics and Confucianism, edited by Stephen C. Angle and Michael A. Slote: Routledge, 2013. Yu, Ying-shih. Chinese History and Culture, Volume 1: Sixth Century B.C.E. To Seventeenth Century. Columbia University Press, 2016. ———. Chinese History and Culture, Volume 2: Seventeenth Century Through Twentieth Century. Columbia University Press, 2016. Yuen, Samson. “Disciplining the Party: Xi Jinping’s Anti-Corruption Campaign and Its Limits.” China Perspectives 2014, no. 3 (September 1, 2014): 41-47. Zakaria, Fareed. “Culture Is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew.” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (1994): 112-14.

Chinese Sources

Guo, Qiyong 郭齊勇. “Ye tan “zi wei fu yin” yu Mengzi lun Shun—jian yu Liu Qingping xiansheng shangque” 也談“子為父隱”與孟子論舜—兼與劉清平先生商榷 [On the “Son Concealment of the Father” the Case of Shun in the Mencius—A Discussion with Mr. Liu Qingping], Zhexue Yanjiu 哲學研究 [Philosophical Studies], no. 10 (2002): 27-30. Jiang, Zemin 江澤民. Lun “sange daibiao” 論“三個代表” [Discussion on “the Three Represents”]. Zhongyang Wenxian Chubanshe, 2001. Li, Zehou 李澤厚. Makesi zhuyi zai Zhongguo 馬克思主義在中國 [Marxism in China]. Mingbao Chubanshe, 2006.

220 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Liang, Shuming 梁漱溟. Dong xi wenhua ji qi zhexue 東西文化及其哲學 [Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies]. Caizheng Bu Yinshua Ju, 1921. Liu, Qingping 劉清平. “Meide haishi fubai?: Xi “Mengzi” zhong youguan Shun de liang ge anli” 美德還是腐敗?:析“孟子”中有關舜的兩個案例 [Virtue or Corruption? An Analysis of Two Cases of Emperor Shun in the Mencius], Zhexue Yanjiu 哲學研究 [Philosophical Studies], no. 2 (2002): 43-47. Mou, Zongsan 牟宗三. Zhengdao yu zhidao 政道與治道 [Authority and Governance]. Xuesheng Shuju, 1991. Yu, Ying-shih 余英時. “Qian Mu yu xin rujia” 錢穆與新儒家 [Qian Mu and the New Confucians]. In Xiandai ruxue lun 現 代 儒 學 論 [Discussions of Contemporary Confucianism]. Bafang Wenhua Qiye Gongsi, 1996. Zhang, Dainian 張岱年. Guoxue jin lun 國學今論 [Present Discussions of Sinology]. Liaoning Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 1995.

APPENDICES

221

Appendix - A

Rogelio Leal Lau China Institute Lau China PhD Candidate Strand Campus, Strand Political Science & China Studies London, WC2R 2LS Institute Research United Kingdom Global Institutes Joint PhD programme with Telephone No: +447922032763 King’s College London National University of Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

Information Sheet for Interviewees Research Ethics Committee Reference Number: LRS-14/15-0537

Please make sure to read and understand this Information Sheet before giving consent to participate in this study.

Title of study: Overseas Scholars of Confucianism: Towards a Pragmatic Political Philosophy

Invitation I would like to formally invite you to participate in this research project which forms part of my doctoral studies. I will conduct interviews with leading scholars and experts on Confucianism living and/or working in mainland China and overseas.

Your participation is voluntary. Choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in anyway. Before you decide whether you want to take part, you must understand the nature and purpose of this study, why the research is being done, and what your participation will involve.

Please read the following information carefully and feel free to contact me if anything needs to be clarified or you require additional information.

Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to investigate contemporary Confucian scholars’ discourse. The aim is to analyse and assess the works, opinions, and experiences of selected works (mainly English) of Confucian theorists in regard to the components, advantages, and disadvantages of (re)establishing Confucianism as a civic statute in China.

The interviews will be essential to develop my research project, and it will allow me to obtain significant information on contemporary overseas Confucian discourse. One of the benefits of this study is to disclose the difference of opinions within the sphere of Confucian studies and how these can improve the advancement of society.

Taking part in the study You have been invited to participate in this study because your works and/or research are relevant to the nature of this project.

Participation is voluntary. There is no obligation for you to participate.

There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this study. If you decide to take part, you will be asked to sign a Consent Form before the interview takes place. A guide with the topics of discussion will be provided in advance for you to consider.

The interview will last about one hour (no more than two) and you are free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason. The interview will take place at a suitable venue convenient for both parties (e.g. an office or a place of your preference); however, it is designed to be flexible so as to meet your needs. The interview will be recorded subject to your permission, and, upon request, you will be given the results/findings of this study when completed.

Appendix - A

Rogelio Leal Lau China Institute Lau China PhD Candidate Strand Campus, Strand Political Science & China Studies London, WC2R 2LS Institute Research United Kingdom Global Institutes Joint PhD programme with Telephone No: +447922032763 King’s College London National University of Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

Confidentiality and information disclosure It is up to you whether you want to be fully identified, partially identified, or wish to remain anonymous for this study. Any personal information collected will be treated in accordance to the UK Data Protection Act 1998 or within any regulations relevant to the country where the interview will be taking place. The information gathered in the interview will be strictly confidential and only be used to supplement my research findings. You are entitled to have your data withdrawn without giving any reason up to the point of concluding the research on this specific project by September 30, 2016.

The interview can be held in English, French, Spanish, or Mandarin. If Mandarin is the language of your choice, a translator will be provided upon request to assist on any communications that may not be accurately transmitted by any of the parties. If you prefer, you may hire your own personal translator instead; if this is the case, please let me know in advance. The translator or any person present during the interview, apart from the participant (you) and the interviewer (me), will have to sign an agreement stating that the information discussed during the interview cannot be disclosed to a third party.

Other participants (interviewees) will not have access to your interview until the findings are published in my final doctoral thesis. My supervisor(s) and administrative staff at King’s College London and the National University of Singapore will be the sole exceptions to have access to these interviews (if required) only for academic purposes before submitting the final report.

Should you have any questions regarding this Information Sheet or require more information about this study please contact me at your convenience:

Rogelio Leal PhD Candidate, Lau China Institute Strand Campus, Strand London, WC2R 2LS United Kingdom [email protected]

If this study has harmed you in any way or if you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study, you can contact King's College London using the details below for further advice and information:

Professor Yao Xinzhong, Dean of the School of Philosophy at Renmin University of China, Emeritus Professor at King’s College London: [email protected]

Thank you for reading this information sheet and for considering taking part in this research.

Appendix - B

Rogelio Leal Lau China Institute Lau China PhD Candidate Strand Campus, Strand Political Science & China Studies London, WC2R 2LS Institute Research United Kingdom Global Institutes Joint PhD programme with Telephone No: +447922032763 King’s College London National University of Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

Consent Form Research Ethics Committee Reference Number: LRS-14/15-0537

Title of study: Overseas Scholars of Confucianism: Towards a Pragmatic Political Philosophy

Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet provided Please tick and/or listened to an explanation about the research. or initial I confirm that I understand that by ticking/initialling each box I am consenting to this element of the study. I understand that it will be assumed that unticked/uninitialed boxes mean that I ☐ DO NOT consent to that part of the study. 1. I confirm that I have read and understood the Information Sheet dated on the ______day of ______, 20___ for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the ☐ information and asked questions which have been answered satisfactorily. 2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason. Furthermore, I understand that I will be able to withdraw my data if ☐ necessary until September 30, 2016. 3. I consent to the processing of my personal information for the purposes explained to me. I understand that such information will be handled in accordance with the terms of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 or within any regulations relevant to the country where the interview will ☐ be taking place. 4. I understand that my information may be subject to review by responsible individuals from any of the two universities (KCL & NUS) for monitoring and audit purposes. ☐ 5. Anonymity is optional for this research. Please select ONE from the following 3 options: a) I agree to be fully identified ☐

b) I agree to be partially identified ☐

c) I wish to remain anonymous ☐ 6. I understand that the information I have submitted will be published as a report, and, upon request, I wish to receive a copy of it. ☐ 7. I consent to my interview being audio recorded. ☐

Name of Participant Date Signature

Rogelio Leal Name of Researcher Date Signature

NB: A copy of this Consent Form will be given to the participant to keep and refer to at any time

Appendix - C

Rogelio Leal Lau China Institute Lau China PhD Candidate Strand Campus, Strand Political Science & China Studies London, WC2R 2LS Institute Research United Kingdom Global Institutes Joint PhD programme with Telephone No: +447922032763 King’s College London National University of Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

Indicative Questions Research Ethics Committee Reference Number: LRS-14/15-0537

Name: ______Date: ______

Background

• What are the motivations behind your interest in the Confucian tradition? o Could you briefly describe or define what is Confucianism? • Could you mention the people that have had the most influence on your academic career? o What are most meaningful experiences that led you to engage in your field of studies? • Are there any non-Confucian inspirations that supplement your understandings of Confucianism? • In terms of transmitting your interpretations, who is your intended audience? o How would you explain the significance of your research to someone not familiar with the Confucian tradition? • What distinguishes your approach to Confucianism from your contemporaries in terms of methods, discourse, or aims? • How do your views differ from previous generations of Confucian scholars and the ones of your teachers or mentors?

Application

• What are the biggest challenges you have faced when interpreting the Confucian classics and/or the works of former Confucian philosophers/intellectuals? o How valuable and applicable do you think your interpretations are in the twenty-first century? • Could you comment on the evolution of Confucian discourse after the Cultural Revolution? • What features of this tradition ought to be preserved, reconstructed, and/or revived in present-day China (and abroad) and for which purposes? • What are the consequences of Confucian academic presence emerging in the West (and in China)? • What do you envision for Confucianism and how pragmatic could it become in the next few decades? • How would you go about continuing the legacy of the Confucian tradition?

Social, political, cultural

• Certain aspects corresponding to Confucian thought have been embraced by the Chinese Communist Party in the past three to four decades. How important is the

Appendix - C

Rogelio Leal Lau China Institute Lau China PhD Candidate Strand Campus, Strand Political Science & China Studies London, WC2R 2LS Institute Research United Kingdom Global Institutes Joint PhD programme with Telephone No: +447922032763 King’s College London National University of Singapore E-mail: [email protected]

government’s recognition of Confucianism towards re-defining China’s cultural identity and setting practices and attitudes towards shaping social order? • To what extent is the Confucian philosophy and religiosity related to the current discursive context of Chinese political culture and modes of governance? o Can this relationship produce or establish a new form of civil religion or civic statute? • What type of disputes/consensuses may arise between Western and Confucian civilisations in the future if Confucianism strengthens with time? (E.g. consequences of Confucian academic presence emerging in the West or China’s rise and outreach to the world) • Could formal and informal dialogues between Confucian scholars and government officials serve to set practices and attitudes towards reshaping social order? • Which Western thinkers or ideas you believe to be the most influential in contemporary Confucian discourse and vice versa? • What are the main differences between Chinese, Asian (non-Chinese), and Western Confucian discourses? • Which aspects of Confucianism can be legitimately incorporated in an international context?

On selected works

• Ask specific questions on 3 of their major or most recent publications. • Challenge one of their key points or offer an opposing view from another scholar on a specific topic. • Ask them to provide a brief account of any major, recent or upcoming publications or ideas relevant to their views on the Confucian tradition. Include, if any, their plans and/or projects for continuing the Confucian legacy.

Closing question

• Are there any features of your thought that you would like to stress that can be helpful for my research?