IS CONFUCIANISM COMPATIBLE WITH LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY?
2007; Wiley; Volume: 34; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1540-6253.2007.00409.x
ISSN1540-6253
Autores Tópico(s)Japanese History and Culture
ResumoIn January 1958, four great Confucian philosophers of the twentieth century—Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan, Xu Fuguan, and Zhang Junmai (Carson Chang)—published in Hong Kong and Taiwan a Manifesto to the World on Behalf of Chinese Culture.1 At a time when Mainland China had been converted to Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, the Manifesto affirmed the spiritual life of the Chinese cultural tradition in the form of Confucian learning on the heart–mind and nature of humanity (xinxing zhixue). It expressed the authors' continued faith in and commitment to the vitality of this tradition and its future, and suggested that there was much that the Western world could learn from the Chinese cultural tradition. As regards to Chinese culture itself, the Manifesto pointed out that the direction of progress to be taken should extend the attainment of moral self-realization to the fields of politics, of knowledge, and of technology. In other words, China needs a genuine democratic reconstruction, and scientific and technological skills. For this reason, China must embrace the civilization of the world; for this will enable her national character to reach higher planes of perfection and her spiritual life to achieve a more comprehensive development.2 (Emphases added) It is clear from the Manifesto that the "civilization of the world" to be embraced refers to liberal constitutional democracy (LCD) and modern science and technology as practiced in Western modernity. The Manifesto therefore serves as the point of departure for many scholars who tackled the issue of the relationship between Confucianism and liberal democracy.3 Half a century has passed since the Manifesto was published. In the meantime, the world and China have both changed beyond recognition. Mainland China has gone through the turmoil of the Anti-Rightist Campaign and the Cultural Revolution, and is experiencing an economic revival unprecedented in modern Chinese history. Hong Kong has passed from colonial rule to autonomy under Chinese sovereignty and is experiencing a strong popular demand for democracy.4 In Taiwan, authoritarian Nationalist rule has given way to a full Western-style liberal democracy.5 Liberal democracy has also been introduced to South Korea whose culture used to be Confucian.6 The fact remains, however, that Mainland China today is not practicing the kind of Western-style democracy envisioned by the Manifesto. Is this kind of democracy compatible with Chinese tradition in general, and with the Confucian tradition in particular? The issue is perhaps as alive today as it was fifty years ago. It is the purpose of this article to revisit the Manifesto in light of progress in scholarship since then and the intellectual climate of today. The article will first examine the relevant arguments in the Manifesto. It will then discuss the issues raised by it in light of the views of scholars subsequently writing on the issues. The article will conclude by reassessing the Manifesto and outlining a possible Confucian approach to the political philosophy of China's future political development. The thesis of the Manifesto as far as China's political development is concerned is that not only are there seeds for or germs of democracy within the Chinese tradition, particularly the Confucian tradition ("Proposition 1"7), but the establishment of an LCD in China is the internal requirement or necessity of the development of the Chinese cultural tradition itself ("Proposition 2"). According to Proposition 1, Confucianism is compatible with LCD. According to Proposition 2, the development of LCD in China will (to quote from the passage in the Manifesto quoted at the beginning of this article) "enable her national character to reach higher planes of perfection and her spiritual life to achieve a more comprehensive development" than ever before. It seems therefore that Proposition 2 is a stronger claim than Proposition 1. As regards Proposition 1, the authors of the Manifesto adduce as evidence both ideas and practices in the Chinese tradition which are considered to be consistent with the spirit of democracy. The arguments for Proposition 2 are more complicated, and conclude as follows: The capacity for self-determination by the moral agent requires the possibility of his/her political participation. Here we see a fundamental contradiction between the moral spirit in Chinese culture and the monarchical system. The contradiction can only be resolved by a constitutional democracy that affirms that all are equal political agents (zhuti). Thus constitutional democracy is required by the internal development of the moral spirit in Chinese culture.8 In line with the Confucian faith of the authors, the Manifesto privileges the moral consciousness and assumes that the subject (zhuti) in traditional Chinese culture is primarily a moral subject (agent). It is believed that it is the inner requirement of the development of Chinese culture in this modern age for this moral subject to become a political subject and a cognitive subject as well, so that China can embrace democracy and science. For this purpose, one of the authors of the Manifesto, Mou Zongsan, developed an interesting theory of the "self-negation" (kanxian) of conscience (liangzhi), which holds that in order to develop (kaichu) democracy and science in the Chinese cultural tradition, the conscience needs to undergo temporarily a process of self-negation.9 Traces of this idea can be found in the Manifesto itself, when it suggests that the moral subject should temporarily forget itself in order to become a purely cognitive subject.10 Some of the arguments in the Manifesto find resonance in more recent writings. There is indeed considerable support for the basic position adopted by the Manifesto among intellectuals sympathetic to Confucianism today. It has become widely recognized, even among scholars committed to liberalism (e.g., Lin Yu-sheng [Lin Yusheng], Chang Hao [Hao Chang, Zhang Hao])11, that there are resources within Confucianism that can be employed in support of LCD. Lee Ming-huei (Li Minghui) points out that . . . the debate between Neo-Confucianism and Chinese liberalism has become past history. . . . There is no irreconcilable or fundamental contradiction between the basic beliefs of Neo-Confucianism and liberalism.12 This is not to say that there is unanimous agreement that the approach adopted by the Manifesto toward democracy (or LCD) is the correct one from the perspective of Confucianism itself. For example, Jiang Qing, a leading Confucian writer in Mainland China, has criticized the neo-Confucian philosophers (i.e., the authors of the Manifesto) for succumbing to the May Fourth approach of wholesale Westernization.13 In his view, the Western-style democracy is tied to a specific history and culture and is not universally valid. Thus it is worthwhile today to reflect critically upon the 1958 Manifesto and explore further the issues raised by it. How do we study the question of the relationship between Confucianism and LCD? Several methodological issues need to be resolved first if the study is to be fruitful. First, we need to define carefully what we mean by "Confucianism" and "LCD." Second, since Confucianism has not generated LCD in Chinese history, the question of the "compatibility" between Confucianism and LCD arises. Let us consider first the definitions of Confucianism and LCD. As Joseph Chan has pointed out,14 LCD can mean either a political philosophy or a political system that actually works. From a practical point of view, it seems that it would be more fruitful, at least to begin with, to study the relationship or compatibility between Confucianism and LCD as a political system. The latter has already come into existence in many parts of the world, not only in countries belonging to Western civilization, but also in countries spread across all continents. Given the diversity of the culture of countries practicing LCD today, it seems safe to conclude that LCD as a set of political institutions is compatible with many different cultures, traditions, and religions. The more difficult methodological question is what we mean by Confucianism. For example, the sociologist Ambrose King (Jin Yaoji) has drawn a distinction between imperial (or institutional) Confucianism and social Confucianism. While the former has perished, the latter has survived to a considerable extent in the form of principles and norms governing social behavior.15 Lee Ming-huei also points to the existence of a "deep-level" Confucianism which operates not at the conscious level but exerts an influence on the mentality, mode of behavior and pattern of thinking of the Chinese.16 Social psychologists have demonstrated by empirical research that Confucian concepts are still very much alive in social relations and moral reasoning among the Chinese.17 Two even more useful categorizations are those developed by Jiang Qing and Lin Anwu. Lin18 distinguishes between "lively" (shenghuohua) Confucianism (ethical values and norms for people's daily life), imperial Confucianism, and critical Confucianism. He points out that classical Confucianism was originally mainly of the "lively" and "critical" strands, but imperial Confucianism became dominant from the Han Dynasty onward. Jiang Qing's classification scheme19 includes "life" (shengming) Confucianism or "heart–mind–nature" (xinxing) Confucianism, political Confucianism (which follows Xunzi in recognizing the darker sides of human nature, emphasizes the rites [li] rather than benevolence [ren], deals with the practical tasks of the construction and maintenance of political and social institutions and which includes a critical dimension, as exemplified by the Gongyang learning on Chunqiu [the Spring and Autumn Annals] and much of Han Confucianism generally), and politicized Confucianism (which is an ideology serving only the interest of the rulers, as exemplified by Ancient Text Classics school [guwen jingxue] of the Han, and which has been dominant most of the time in Chinese history). It is quite obvious that imperial Confucianism or politicized Confucianism is incompatible with LCD. Does that mean that in studying the question of the compatibility between Confucianism and LCD, we should disregard such strands of Confucianism? There seems to be a tendency to do this not only in the Manifesto but also in more recent studies.20 However, as pointed out by Jiang Qing,21 are we doing justice to Confucianism if we confine it to the pre-Qin texts, and then only extract from them passages that speak against tyranny and in favor of "government for the people" (or even "government of the people," though clearly not "government by the people")? Jiang himself speaks very highly of "political Confucianism" and believes that it contains extremely rich resources which can be used to construct a new political system for China that is consistent with the Chinese cultural tradition and with Confucian ideals and that is not merely an imitation of Western LCD.22 Although we may not agree with his interpretation or assessment of "political Confucianism" or its practical relevance to the task of political reconstruction in contemporary China, his criticism of the approach of confining Confucianism to a small scope, as well as his critique of the neo-Confucian philosophers' (particularly Mou Zongsan's) attempt to derive the Western-style of democracy from "life Confucianism," is fairly powerful. It should also be noted that ideas do not exist in a vacuum but always in a sociopolitical and historical context. Certain ideas contained in classical texts may be noble, but the practice of subsequent interpretation, implementation, and development of those ideas cannot be ignored. As in the case of the great world religions, Confucianism is a living tradition that has evolved in the course of centuries and millennia, and has involved itself in inextricable connections with systems of political power and social organization. No great systems of thought can be free from political manipulation, as the existence of power and of ideas (the sword and the book)23 are both fundamental facts in human social existence. The "complicity" (here I use the word in a neutral but not negative sense) of Confucianism in the exercise of political power in Chinese history must be squarely faced. Imperial or politicized Confucianism need not be considered a bad thing, because political power in itself is not evil. As Jiang Qing has pointed out, political Confucianism had indeed served to legitimize imperial rule in the Han Dynasty, but this may be seen in a positive light because the imperial system was appropriate to the circumstances of China at that time as a political system that could maintain social order and serve the needs and well-being of the people.24 On the other hand, Xu Fuguan viewed the growth of autocracy in the Han as resulting in the decline of the original spirit of Confucianism even as it was co-opted as a state philosophy.25 Both Jiang and Xu can be right at the same time, because there is no perfection in human history. Compromises and sacrifices are inevitable, and it is worthwhile to study how they impacted on Confucianism over the ages before the idea and practice of the Western-style of democracy became conceivable. This argues for a broad view of Confucianism. Take the example of the concept of the "Three Bonds" (sangang) developed by Han Confucianism. The approach adopted by many contemporary scholars26 is to dismiss it as a deviation (under the influence of the Legalist and Yinyang schools) from classical Confucianism which emphasized the reciprocal obligations in and mutuality of the relationship between king and minister, father and son, husband and wife. However, it seems that the significance of the "Three Bonds" in the history of Chinese Confucianism, particularly Song–Ming neo-Confucianism,27 deserves deeper investigation. It may well be the case that the Three Bonds, and related norms of acceptance of and obedience to authority in a hierarchical society, constitute distinctive characteristics of Chinese culture that still survive to a considerable extent even today. It has often been said that in Confucian culture, people are more readily submissive to authority (whether in the political, familial, or social context) and are less willing to question or challenge it or to insist on their rights against it. Is this indeed an element of Confucianism, or, is this an obstacle to China's democratization that needs to be confronted? Are there other similar obstacles that can be attributed to Confucianism? Scholars concerned with the challenge of China's modernization have advocated the "creative transformation" of the Chinese tradition (Lin Yu-sheng)28 or the "modernistic reinterpretation, readjustment, revision, or re-vitalization" of traditional values (Charles Weihsun Fu).29 The study of the compatibility of Confucianism with LCD necessarily involves a critical assessment of the Confucian tradition for the purpose of deciding whether, and, if so, how it should undergo creative transformation. On the other hand, this is not to say that anything in Confucianism that is found to be incompatible with LCD must be automatically rejected and discarded. As Chenyang Li (Li Chenyang) has rightly pointed out: It is a simple-minded fallacious inference that, since democracy is good, anything that is undemocratic must be bad. An argument can be made that in the United States and throughout the democratic West, healthy society has been threatened precisely by the diminishing of traditional values similar to these undemocratic Confucian values.30 The question therefore concerns not only the creative transformation of the Confucian tradition to meet the challenges of Enlightenment and modernity,31 but also whether, and, if so, how Confucian values (i.e., those worth preserving in the process of creative transformation) and modern democratic values or institutions can coexist in China's political system in future. The Manifesto argues in favor of the compatibility between Confucianism and LCD. Useful studies have been done by scholars in recent years to strengthen further the "compatibility" thesis, for example, the compatibility between Confucianism and democracy (Lee Ming-huei,32 Joseph Chan33), that between Confucianism and rights (Lee Seung-hwan,34 Chung-ying Cheng [Cheng Zhongying]35), and that between Confucianism and human rights (Yu Kam-por,36 Joseph Chan,37 Heiner Roetz,38 Huang Chun-chieh [Huang Junjie],39 Lee Ming-huei40). It would be worthwhile to go one step further to formulate an overall view of the compatibility between Confucianism and LCD, with special reference to points of possible incompatibility. The essence of the Confucian approach to personal, social, and political life can probably be captured by the paradigm of "inner sagehood and outward kingliness" (neisheng waiwang), although the term first appeared not in the Confucian classics but in Zhuangzi.41"Inner sagehood" refers to the Confucian emphasis on self-cultivation so as to develop one's true humanity and to realize one's nature (and thus to know Heaven and realize the Dao).42 But Confucianism is not only concerned with personal "salvation." Confucius said: "Now the man of [ren], wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others."43 The Great Learning (Daxue) refers to the gradual expansion of one's sphere of moral practice from self-cultivation to having an orderly family, participating in the government of the state and finally bringing peace and enlightenment to the world. Hence the ideal of "outward kingliness," which refers to serve to the community and contribution to humanity by holding positions of power. The Confucian conception of power is that "[p]olitical authority is a trust conferred by the Mandate of Heaven upon the government for the welfare of the people."44 Those in positions of power are subject to more rigorous moral requirements than ordinary people. The greater the political power, the heavier the moral responsibility. At this point there seems to be little incompatibility between Confucianism and modern LCD. Although political authority in the LCD no longer comes from Heaven, such authority is still a trust for the welfare of the people. The Confucian emphasis on the moral responsibility of power holders and the particularly onerous moral demands on them is relevant to democratically elected politicians in the same way as it was applicable to monarchs and scholars–officials. It would also be perfectly legitimate to encourage politicians or would-be politicians in an LCD to engage in self-cultivation so as to improve their abilities and moral qualities and become persons of character and integrity instead of mere opportunists or dealers of power and interests. But when we move on from the moral responsibility of power holders to the relationship between them and the people ruled by them, some incompatibility between Confucianism and LCD arises. Kant once wrote: A government might be established on the principle of benevolence towards the people, like that of a father towards his children. Under such a paternal government (imperium paternale), the subjects, as immature children who cannot distinguish what is truly useful or harmful to themselves, would be obliged to behave purely passively and to rely upon . . . [the] kindness [of the head of state] in willing their happiness at all. Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism . . . [where] its subjects . . . have no rights whatsoever.45 (Original italics) It is written in the Great Learning (Daxue): If a son is filial to his parents, he will be loyal to his lord. . . . If he is kind to his children, he will take good care of his people. Kang Gao said: "A lord should take care of his people as his children." . . . He has the same likes and dislikes as the people, so he is like a parent to the people.46 Confucianism as it evolved in Chinese history became associated with a paternalistic conception of government. It was supposed that parental functions were to be performed by a good government with regard to the subjects. Thus the emperor was known as the "monarch–father" (junfu), and officials known as "fathers–mothers–officials" (fumuguan). The Chinese terms for "ministers" (chenzi) and "subjects" (zimin) both include the character for "son" (zi).47 Filial piety at home was supposed to form the basis of loyalty to the state. Thus it is written in the Book of Filial Piety (Xiaojing): Hence filial piety begins with the service of our parents, proceeds to serve the emperor and is consummated in establishing ourselves in the world and achieving attainments. . . . Therefore, when they serve their rulers with filial piety, they are loyal. . . . The relation of loving father and dutiful son is rooted in the nature of man, and is a source from which springs the principle of righteousness between an enlightened ruler and his loyal ministers. . . . Confucius said: "The superior man serves his parents with filial piety, from which develops loyalty to the sovereign."48 In the course of the development of the Confucian tradition in the imperial era, the analogous conceptions of the father–son relationship and ruler–subject relationship mutually influenced each other, so that in the end both became one-sided relationships of domination and subordination in which the superior party could exercise absolute authority and demand absolute obedience from the inferior party. This is what Lin Anwu called the "fallacy of the misplaced Dao,"49 or the degeneration of the Confucian ethics of reciprocity and mutuality into an ethics of absolute obedience. Lin's analysis of the dynamics of the interaction of Confucian ethics and political power in traditional Chinese society leading to the failure of the original ideals of Confucian ethics is revealing.50 He points out that Confucianism originally intended to build upon the existing "kinship-based natural connection" of Chinese society a "personalistic moral connection," which represents the spirit of Confucian ethics.51 However, after imperial rule was established, a sociopolitical and ideological system gradually emerged which had as its core a "domination-based political connection" and as its background the "kinship-based natural connection," and which turned the "personalistic moral connection" into its instrument.52 The Confucian ideal that the sage should be king was turned on its head and the emperor was considered sacred. The monarch, the father and the sage became one, and the monarch became the top of the pyramid of the soul of the Chinese people, the source of all values and the ultimate basis of all judgment. Obviously, this situation led to a serious "fallacy of the misplaced Dao" in Chinese culture.53 Since the "personalistic moral connection" was captured (though not completely and therefore subject to resistance from time to time) by political power and its ethics of conscience turned into an ethics of submission, the powerful or the superior party in the social hierarchy could in the name of Heavenly Reason require subordinate and inferior parties to give up their interests and desires, thus resulting in the phenomenon of "killing people by Reason" (yili sharen).54 Lin's analysis is insightful because it demonstrates how Confucian ideas and values have developed in the course of Chinese history and been turned into instruments for political and social control. Unless we subscribe to anarchism or adopt Foucault's critique of power knowledge, we need not assume that any idea that has lent itself to use for political and social control is bad, because political and social control is not necessarily bad, and some form of political and social control is essential for human existence in society. The task for us today is to attempt to understand fully the true role played by Confucian ideas in Chinese history, and then to promote their creative transformation to meet the challenges of modernity. Lin himself has put forward some ideas for such creative transformation. He suggests that the "personalistic moral connection" can revitalize itself; the vertical axis of "kinship-based natural connection" should give way to a new horizontal axis of intersubjective interaction, so that a new "contract-based social connection," a "public space," and a civil society can emerge. The ethics of citizenship would take the place of the traditional ethics of "people under Heaven" (tianmin).55 Although Lin's ideas are expressed through his own unique terminology, they seem to be similar to the basic thrust of the Manifesto that China should develop LCD. But is he then advocating some form of "wholesale Westernization"? Will there be any role for Confucianism in the Chinese political system and civil society of the future? Will Confucianism be no more than a philosophy of personal self-cultivation in the private sphere, and the public sphere will be governed by principles of LCD and civil society imported from the West? What will be left of Confucianism after its "creative transformation"? This is ultimately a question concerning the relationship between the Confucian tradition of Chinese culture and China's future political order. It seems that this is the question which Mou Zongsan's theory of the "self-negation" of conscience seeks to answer. We therefore revisit here this theory of Mou's. In Mou's view,56 traditional China only had a Way of Administration (zhidao) but not a Way of Politics (zhengdao). The Chinese cultural tradition, particularly Confucianism, has generated and developed fully rationality or reason in its "intensional" meaning or "function presentation" (also referred to as the "spirit of syncretic fulfillment of reason") (e.g., the content and application of the spirit of democracy and respect for human rights). What it lacked was rationality in its "extensional" meaning or "constructive presentation" ("frame-presentation") (also referred to as the "spirit of the analytical fulfilment of reason") (e.g., the form and institutional structures of democracy and respect for human rights). Confucian ethics and Confucian doctrines about human nature, human relationships, and, in particular, the moral obligations of rulers, exemplify the intensional aspect of rationality. However, it was in the West that the extensional aspect of rationality first matured, and this aspect comprises elements such as democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, parliamentary institutions, and the rule of law, thus constituting the Way of Politics (zhengdao). Mou points out that this development in the West is not culturally specific to the West, but has universal significance and general applicability for all rational human beings, people, and cultures. Mou believes that China in the past has developed a matured "Tradition of the Dao" (daotong), and what it needs for the future is to develop also the "Tradition of Knowledge" (xuetong) and the "Tradition of Politics" (zhengtong). The creation of the two new traditions is to be achieved by the "self-negation" of conscience.57 The theory of the self-negation of conscience was apparently designed to explain (i) how it is possible for science and democracy (i.e., the Tradition of Knowledge and the Tradition of Politics, or the cognitive subject [zhuti] and the political subject mentioned in the Manifesto) can emerge from a Chinese cultural tradition whose essence (in Mou's view) lies in moral consciousness and its self-realization, (ii) the autonomy of science and politics relative to moral reason, and simultaneously (iii) the ultimate subordination of science and politics to moral reason as the source of all human values and the foundation of all human endeavours. Thus Mou calls democracy (together with science) the new form of "outward kingliness," hence preserving the basic structure of "inner sagehood and outward kingliness" which is taken to be the unchangeable essence of Chinese culture and of Confucianism.58 Mou's insight is that he recognized the deficiency of the traditional Chinese approach of treating politics as merely an extension of morality and not developing an autonomous science of politics and law. This represents an important self-criticism of the Confucian tradition of minben (people-as-the-basis) politics, benevolent governance (renzheng) and rule by virtue (dezhi). However, the question remains as regards to what extent the political domain should be autonomous and independent of moral reason which in Mou's framework remains ultimately supreme. It is almost certain that by the self-negation of conscience in developing the political subject and the domain of democratic politics, Mou did not mean that political actors can be Machiavellian and totally disregard moral norms when participating in politics. According to Chung-ying Cheng, Mou's self-negation of subjectivity involves the development of intersubjectivity and objectivity and an enlargement of the subject; a new level of human action is created at which the subject retains its original faculty of moral judgement. Thus "self-transcendence" or "transcendental integration" may be a more accurate description of the process than "self-negation."59 In the context of political philosophy, I would suggest that Mou's theory may also be interpreted to mean that in designing a new political order for China's future, the mode of reasoning should not be limited to traditional moral thinking such as that which affirms the innate goodness of men and their potential to be sages, stresses the importance of self-cultivation, and places the highest hope on a "sagely monarch and a wise and virtuous prime minister" (shengjun xianxiang). Instead, the
Referência(s)