Yet another bad paper. This time on Confucius

October 13, 2008

 

No philosophy has gone through the ages and emerged wholly unmodified and faithful to the founder’s original vision. Followers of the philosophy continually interpret and reinterpret the founder’s words, modifying it little by little, to defend it from criticisms and for the philosophy to fit the conditions of the present society. A philosophy as old as Confucianism is definitely not spared from this tendency. It is interesting to see that the Confucianism adopted as the state religion of Ancient China (to be referred hereafter as Imperial Confucianism) was so different from what Confucius had in mind that they seem similar only in name. Confucius envisioned a society governed by virtue and morality, a rule by example; imperial Confucianism produced a state that emphasized strict adherence to the rule of law. Confucius approved of opposing superiors who have strayed from morality; imperial Confucianism’s society was that of strict obedience to superiors no matter what. This difference stems from the modification of Confucian thought, especially due to the influence of Legalism.

A brief review of Confucian doctrine

Confucius believed that to bring Happiness and Harmony to the world, men must cultivate their selves, to bring out the characteristics of jen. Jen can be roughly translated into words such as benevolence, human-heartedness, altruism, empathy, love, and virtue. Confucius, though he never defined what jen really is, says that, “It is to love men.” Basically jen is what makes humans human, a rising above of petty selfishness and a devotion to morality. It is through jen that harmony is brought to the world.

This harmony starts with the self, by cultivating jen. The cultivation of jen depends on the observance of rules of propriety (li). Li is concerned with the rites of daily life, the proper way of everyday life. It is thought of as “the middle way,” an observance of moderation. Hsiao, or filial piety, comes from the observance of li. It is only proper for the children to give respect to their parents, to obey them and serve them; parents then have a duty to love their children and ensure that they grow up to be honorable, by being honorable themselves and following the rules of li. Charles Hucker, in his paper Confucianism and the Censorial System, says that this obedience does not mean blind obedience. Confucius allows the the remonstration or opposition of superiors, in the family setting and the government setting, when they are found to be unrighteous. This leading back to morality of superiors is also considered as respect.¹ The observance of li along with the cultivation of music and art, yueh, brings about culture; and this elevates a person, allowing him to see that he himself plays a part in society and that the proper acting out of this role is important. By giving proper respect to superiors, equals, and inferiors; following tradition and observing the proper rites of living; and encouraging the development of education and culture; one becomes a chun-tzu (roughly translated as a gentleman or the superior man).

The chun-tzu then is tasked to guide those inferior to him and is encouraged to take a post of public service, particularly government office. Confucius viewed the state as one big family, those who rule as the fathers, and their subjects as their children. Following the rules of li and the concept of hsiao, people will be well taken care of and they can cultivate their own selves and contribute to culture and morality. With an all-pervading atmosphere of morality, laws are rendered useless as there are no more crimes, and harmony prevails.

 

The Chou Period

 

This highly idealistic vision was a product of Confucius’s own times during the Chou dynasty. Confucius (551-479 BC) lived in a time when China was little more than a group of feudal city-states united under the rule of the Chou emperor. These states were united only in name- the Chou emperor, subject to the power shifts between the feudal lords, only a symbolic figurehead. This time of constant feudal conflict would be the birthplace of the philosophy that would define China for the next 2000 years.

The city-states of this time were self-sufficient entities with a relatively small population. As a rule, everybody knew everybody and there was a general atmosphere of familiarity. This did not mean that there were no class distinctions, as the positions of government were available only to those of the nobility, the positions passed on from father to son. Despite this, the government dared not act against its people, especially in times of crisis. The masses can band together and form a force that no official of that time would cross. This tendency gave rise to the idea that the will of the general population is connected to that of spirits. The Shu ching, the Book of History, says that “the insight and watchfulness of Heaven are expressed through the insight and watchfulness of the people.” ²

These characteristics of the city-states found its way in the ideas of Confucius and reflect his view that the state must serve its people. His ideas of respect for all people, the observance of tradition, and the superiority of morality over law was best practiced in this small, familiar setting. The introduction of a highly centralized empire in the Ch’in dynasty was a totally different setting from what Confucius lived in.

Legalism in the Ch’in period

The Ch’in Empire featured the first instance of the adoption of a philosophy as state ideology. Legalism, a philosophy that arose from the brutal and chaotic Warring States period (480-221 BC), featured the importance of efficiency and absolute obedience to the rule of law and superiority. This military characteristic was useful for a state under constant siege from all sides and was used by the ruler of the Ch’in period to solidify his power over a newly-unified China.

Legalism’s highest goal is that of absolute power concentrated in the ruler with the state serving the interests of war and conquest, its people as cogs in the giant war machine. The importance of obedience of inferiors to their superiors was deemed highly important; the only person not subject to subservience would be the emperor. The emperor’s laws are absolute; any form of insubordination was not tolerated and was severely punished. Punishments and rewards were the tools of the ruler to subdue the people with the ideal ratio of more harsh punishments than meager rewards.

Legalism advocated the suppression of the general population. Shang Yang, purported founder of Legalism, says, “A weak people means a strong state and a strong state means a weak people. Therefore, a country, which has the right way, is concerned with weakening the people.”³ Education was regarded as a root of subversion; the masses were to remain uneducated and used either in agriculture or in the military. Culture was treated as a social parasite, of no practical use, a waste of the time and energy of the population, and was to be banned. This war on Education and Culture led to the infamous incident in the Ch’in period of the banning of the study of ancient literature, history, and philosophy; the burning of all books not written for practical uses of agriculture, medicine, and fortune telling; and the execution of scholars.

Imperial Confucianism

The Ch’in dynasty was overthrown in 207 BC, shortly after the death of its emperor, Shi Huang Di. The rulers of the following dynasty, the Han (206 BC-220 AD), were determined not to repeat the atrocities of the Ch’in. The Legalist philosophy was thrown out with no advocate of the philosophy to be allowed in public office. By the decree of Emperor Wu Ti (140-87 BC), Confucianism was adopted as the state religion. The Confucianism adopted, though, was highly modified to fit in the imperial framework, metaphysical aspects were added to it and the emperor was to be viewed as the Son of Heaven. Hucker notes that, “… it glorifies the ruler almost to the point of negating the anti-statism of the classic doctrine.”⁴ With the replacement of the emperor as the center of society, rather than the people, the concept of the chun-tzu was changed. Vitaly Rubin describes this as a change, “… from a wandering knight of humanity into a model official whose chief characteristic was his blind obedience to the commands of his ruler.”⁵ This brings to mind the importance placed on the hierarchy of officials by Legalism.

The adoption of Confucianism as state religion also limited the development of the philosophy. As state religion, Confucianism was left with little or no competition from other philosophies, no challenges to defend itself from. With everybody being a Confucian, intellectual debates were limited only to the internal debate on the polarities of Confucian thought. These poles, though seemingly opposing each other, were considered by Confucius as complimentary. How do you balance the need for self-cultivation with the need to order society? How much time must be devoted to each? Should one be placed over the other? How does the inner realm, the nature of the self, affect the outer realm, the realm of social order; and how does the latter affect the former? What kind of knowledge should the chun-tzu aspire to? These questions produced many different kinds of Confucians, from mystics concerned with self-realization to legal-minded bureaucrats whose ideas closely resembled Legalist doctrine.

The Legalist tendencies of some Confucians does not come as a surprise, for though publicly reviled, Legalism still influenced Ancient China even after the adoption of Confucianism. The need for all officials to be Confucians also contributed to this influence, with some officials being only nominal Confucians with a Legalist leaning. The unification of China under imperial rule set a trend for the following periods and China had little chance to go back to its feudal roots. Laws were required to maintain a vast territory, a large population, and an increasing number of offices. The reliance on these laws though was tempered by the infusion of Confucian ideals. Laws that put the welfare of the state over that of the people, to the detriment of the latter, were Legalist; Laws that helped serve the people were Confucian ideals in a Legalist-like tool. This reliance on the law was not wholly antithetical to Confucian doctrine; it only gravitated toward one of the polar concepts of Confucianism, the emphasis on serving the outer realm, the realm of social order, over the inner realm, the realm of the ordering of the self.

Summary

Confucius never lived to see his ideas in practice, especially as a state religion. He constructed his philosophy in a time of independent feudal states, not in a time of a unified empire. Never having been in an official position of influence, Confucius never had time to practice what he preached. The burden of interpretation, and the changing needs of society, influenced and modified his philosophy. The idea of ruling by an example of morality over that of the rule of law is a very idealistic concept that had to be tempered by the bureaucratic needs of an empire. His philosophy infused with the influence of Legalism, produced the image of Ancient China that is popularly known today.

References:

1.)Schwartz, Benjamin, Some Polarities in Confucian Thought, Nivison, Wright, ed., Confucianism in Action, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1959.

2.)Hucker, Charles, Confucianism and the Chinese Censorial System, Nivison, Wright, ed., Confucianism in Action, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1959.

3.)Rubin, Vitaly, Individual and State in Ancient China, trans. Levine, Steven, Columbia University Press, New York, 1976.

4.) Okay, nalimutan ko yung author ng Oriental Philosophies