Stephen Chan: In the Western world Confucius seems to be known in two main guis­es. The first is for a series of what seem like for­tune cook­ie nuggets of wis­dom, Confucius say…” And usu­al­ly Confucius says some­thing that he actu­al­ly nev­er did say. But he’s come down as some kind of cheap impre­sario of cheap bits of wis­dom.

In the Far East he’s also par­tic­u­lar­ly asso­ci­at­ed with a sense of stric­ture. A sense of reg­u­lar­i­ty. Almost a rit­u­al­ized reg­u­lar­i­ty that puts every­body in their place—in a sub­servient place—underneath hier­ar­chies of pow­er. The whole idea of Confucius as a mod­ern, pro­gres­sive exam­ple of eth­i­cal and gov­ern­men­tal think­ing seems far removed from everybody’s con­scious­ness of him.

And yet at the time when he lived in 500 BC, he was the epit­o­me of good gov­er­nance. He was the epit­o­me of pro­gres­sive ways towards a peace­ful and just order. And he pio­neered many things that we would regard today still as extreme­ly impor­tant. The idea of sta­bil­i­ty. The idea not only of sta­bil­i­ty but sta­bil­i­ty lead­ing to peace­ful­ness was a key exam­ple of the kind of state­craft he wished to advo­cate and to prac­tice.

And he was the inven­tor of a form of the Golden Rule. It was expressed in a neg­a­tive, Do not do to oth­ers what you do not wish to have done to you.” But the idea of reci­procity embed­ded in even this neg­a­tive expres­sion of what we regard as the Golden Rule was some­thing rev­o­lu­tion­ary at that point in time. It meant the treat­ment of peo­ple just­ly, because we our­selves would expect to be treat­ed justly—or cer­tain­ly we would expect not to be treat­ed unjust­ly.

So these are things he strove to put for­ward both has an advis­er to gov­ern­ments, but also as a mem­ber of gov­ern­ments. Because unlike many oth­er philoso­phers, Confucius was an aris­to­crat. He was a gov­ern­ment min­is­ter. He was a per­son of con­sid­er­able pow­er. He was a per­son who com­mand­ed the atten­tion of dukes and princes of many states in the frac­tured realm of China in his day. And he was some­one who was regard­ed dur­ing his life­time as a philoso­pher, a man of wis­dom, some­one with very very great vir­tu­ous teach­ings to impart. So that his absorp­tion into a more mod­ern con­cep­tion of some­one who is reac­tionary is a lat­ter day imprint of Confucius at his very very worst. He was used after his death very very much to jus­ti­fy why things should be sol­id, in place, immutable, and unmov­ing with­in a hier­ar­chy.

Now, in mod­ern days, par­tic­u­lar­ly at the begin­ning of the 20th cen­tu­ry, it was actu­al­ly Sun Yat-sen, the nation­al­ist leader of China try­ing to estab­lish his repub­lic, who pro­posed a rad­i­cal view of Confucius that was all the same true to the essen­tial philo­soph­i­cal foun­da­tions of Confucian thought as man­i­fest in his most pop­u­lar col­lec­tion of writ­ings, The Analects. And that is yes, Confucius taught a hier­ar­chy. He taught rit­u­al adher­ence to the var­i­ous stages of the hier­ar­chy. He could make life very very com­pli­cat­ed by the rit­u­al­ized ways that he pro­pound­ed for evi­dence of obe­di­ence and evi­dence of eth­i­cal, struc­tured behav­ior.

But at the same time with­in his hier­ar­chy there were sys­tems of reci­procity. If in giv­ing obei­sance and respect to the lev­el above you, if that lev­el did not rec­i­p­ro­cate by send­ing ben­e­fits down­wards, then that rela­tion­ship was one of injus­tice. And this cer­tain­ly applied in terms of the rela­tion­ship of the ordi­nary per­son to the rul­ing class. If the emper­or did not bring ben­e­fits to his sub­jects, then he risked los­ing the man­date of Heaven. Respect flowed up, benev­o­lence had to flow down. Take away the benev­o­lence, the gov­ern­ment became unjust and was prone there­fore to fail­ure, and also sus­cep­ti­ble to upris­ing. Sun Yat-sen said, Uprise now because the gov­ern­ment has failed.”

What we have today in the People’s Republic of China, how­ev­er, is a return to that kind of iron­clad sense of Confucian hier­ar­chy, under­neath the pre­tense of con­fer­ring ben­e­fits but at the same time remov­ing all kinds of key ingre­di­ents such as the implic­it respect that reci­procity is meant to entail. So that the respect of the gov­ern­ment for the cit­i­zen is often lack­ing, even if some degree of mate­r­i­al reci­procity, mate­r­i­al ben­e­fit, might flow down. 

An exam­ple I want to look at is the government’s treat­ment of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong, like many Chinese belief sys­tems, is one of these great acts of syn­cret­ic amal­ga­ma­tion of dif­fer­ent reli­gious and spir­i­tu­al views. You have Taoism in it, you have Buddhism in it, every­thing is mixed togeth­er. The adher­ents of the Falun Gong prac­tice all kinds of kung fu-like exer­cis­es, qigong for instance, the mobi­liza­tion of ener­gy. The kinds of ener­gies that are meant to be cul­ti­vat­ed in advanced forms of tai chi and oth­er inter­nal Chinese mar­tial arts. They estab­lish for them­selves in their prac­tice of qigong a direct line to the cos­mic ener­gy and its sources. In terms of their reli­gious expres­sion, it’s a direct rela­tion­ship with the Buddha.

Now, this would be fine. It would just be anoth­er harm­less sect. It would just be an equiv­a­lent of what began as a country-based attempt of peo­ple try­ing to have a spir­i­tu­al life. Except of course in their direct line to Heaven, as it were, what is bypassed is the state. What is bypassed is the Party. The affil­i­a­tion is to some­thing cos­mic, high­er above. The affil­i­a­tion miss­es out an obei­sance, a respect for, an obe­di­ence to, the state and its par­ty. Or in China per­haps the Party and its state.

So it’s not rebel­lion that dri­ves the Chinese state and Party to per­se­cute the Falun Gong. What dri­ves the per­se­cu­tion is the lack of recog­ni­tion from the Falun Gong for the Party and the state. In oth­er words they are accused of miss­ing out key, impor­tant steps in the hier­ar­chies of rec­i­p­ro­ca­tion, the hier­ar­chy which very much should fea­ture the Communist Party, which should fea­ture the Chinese state, and which should not be bypassed for the sake of a direct line to Heaven.

This lack of recog­ni­tion of the state is not unlike that of many Christian mil­len­ni­al sects in dif­fer­ent parts of the world. If you look at a mil­len­ni­al sect like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, they’ve been per­se­cut­ed all over the world, recent­ly in Africa dur­ing Hastings Banda’s tenure as pres­i­dent of Malawi in the 1960s. More recent­ly under­neath the dic­ta­to­r­i­al rule of Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea. And though per­se­cut­ed in Malawi they will almost wiped out by pogroms because they refused to salute the flag as an emblem of the state. They wished to give their affil­i­a­tion, their respect, their wor­ship, direct­ly to the king­dom of Heaven. Which is all very well and good until it bypass­es the king­dom of man.

And it’s this insis­tence that the mate­r­i­al enti­ty of the state, the appa­ra­tus of the state, and all of the accou­trements of the state, this demand that these things should be rec­og­nized and respect­ed as a sign, almost as a rit­u­al­ized require­ment of cit­i­zen­ship and the recep­tion of rights as a cit­i­zen, which dri­ves the per­se­cu­tion of the Falun Gong. In a way, per­haps the Chinese state has gone far too far in per­se­cut­ing an osten­si­bly qui­et, osten­si­bly harm­less reli­gious sect. But it’s very much part and par­cel of a Chinese require­ment to have all reli­gions sub­or­di­nate to the Party, whether it’s the Catholic Church or any oth­er kind of church. It is in some ways rem­i­nis­cent of the dri­ve to con­tain Islamic minori­ties among the Uighur pop­u­la­tion, for instance. It is rem­i­nis­cent to a cer­tain extent of the grave sus­pi­cion against orga­nized politi­cized Buddhism, in terms of the sup­port­ers of a free Tibet.

So the mate­r­i­al foun­da­tion of a com­mu­nist ide­ol­o­gy mar­ries with the hier­ar­chi­cal for­mu­la­tion of a Confucian ethos and becomes final­ly some­thing reac­tionary. This kind of use of Confucianism as a reac­tionary con­trol device was present in a slight­ly more benev­o­lent form in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. There there were greater free­doms, but the iron­clad com­man­der (if one can bor­row a term from North Korea) applied just as much to the Western-educated Lee Kuan Yew as it does to any princeling called Kim in North Korea today. 

Does Confucianism have some­thing to answer for in terms of its ready usage by peo­ple who are author­i­tar­i­an and dic­ta­to­r­i­al? Well, yes it does. But the essen­tial mes­sage that it demands reci­procity, that the state must pro­vide for those below, that does remain a clar­i­on call that can be uti­lized by cit­i­zens to demand their rights. For after all, if ben­e­fits flow down from the state, should not rights also come down from the state?

Further Reference

Religion and World Politics course information


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.