Professor Daniel A. Bell spoke at the Beijing Bookworm on Tuesday night in support of his latest book, China’s New Confucianism. Professor Bell is a noted and respected scholar who has published several books and articles, as well as numerous essays in the online and print media, and I was curious to attend the talk. It is obvious that Professor Bell has reflected a great deal on issues of Confucianism and politics, and he should be commended for his attempts to expand the debate on Chinese reform and development beyond a simple East/West dichotomy. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed in the talk, though to be fair I don’t think I was the target audience.
The goal of Professor Bell’s lecture was to challenge stereotypes regarding the direction of political reform in
First of all I like to know how terms are being defined. Words such as ‘modern,’ ‘tradition,’ and even concepts like ‘Confucianism’ are not ideas fixed in time and place. In discussing Confucianism, Professor Bell cited an eclectic assortment of thinkers/figures who all bring their own unique (and in some cases not wholly compatible) perspectives to the table: Mencius, Xunzi, Tu Wei-ming, Chiang Kai-shek, Wm. Theodore de Bary, Jonathan Spence, Jiang Qing, and Yu Dan among others. Fine as it goes. But what is Confucianism then? Is it the actual, living tradition of years past or is it a recycled and reconstructed traditionalism? (As historian Jaroslav Pelikan once said: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”)
Pushed further, Professor Bell, who clearly and admirably loves his subject, has a great deal of faith in a conceptualization of a Confucianism which possesses universal value, the term Tianxia 天下 was dropped more than a few times throughout. Sometime in the early 20th century, however (as Joseph Levenson once argued) Confucianism shifted from being a values system of universal application to a values system that defined a particular people, culture, and place. In short, “Confucianism” narrowed from an idea which meant ‘civilization’ broadly defined, to a defining characteristic of a specifically Chinese civilization. There have been recent attempts, by Tu Wei-ming and others, to reclaim the universal in Confucianism, but despite the proliferation worldwide of “Confucius Institutes,” one suspects it is the particular that is most attractive to today’s leadership, providing them with appropriate dollops of ‘Chinese characteristics’ to flavor the ideology du jour. I also suspect that most Chinese people have a particularist view of Confucianism as an essential or defining characteristic of a “Chinese” or (if feeling a bit magnanimous) “East Asian” culture.
The term “Confucianism,” as used by Professor Bell on Tuesday night also came across in a homogenized form, stripped in large part of its historical and intellectual dynamism. At one point, and again this may have been heuristic simplification, Professor Bell noted the Legalists as being the long-time opponents of Confucians. True to a point in time. But it would have been worth explaining the profound influence of Legalist thought on the development of “Confucian” political culture in the Han and after. What became more or less the backbone of imperial ideology was an ever-evolving mishmash of Confucian moral exhortation and values-based relationships plus the strong arm of the state with its array of laws, regulations, rewards, and punishments. One wonders which aspect most appeals to today’s Chinese leadership.
Professor Bell’s other major cause, both last night and his essays, is to counter the assumption of Western liberal democracy as the only acceptable form of political modernity. I’m open-minded and willing to go there, but it begs the question, after Churchill: What’s better? Professor Bell seems to imply that
I should admit that my dissatisfaction was not entirely the fault of Professor Bell. His is a quest for a grail: how to define a Chinese political modernity? It is a search which has inspired, motivated, befuddled, and perplexed Chinese intellectuals for well over a century. In so doing, Professor Bell fell into many of the same traps which plagued those who came before. By way of example, Professor Bell, as Sun Yat-sen once did, romanticizes the Censorate, the imperial department in charge of roaming the empire and reporting on the malfeasance of officials, kind of glorified roving auditors. Sun was so enamored that he proposed the Censorate as one of his two additions to the tripartite western political model. Professor Bell described the Censorate as officials whose job it was to watch the emperor and keep the throne in check. Nothing could be further from the truth; the Censorate generally cast their gaze downward at those officials under their jurisdiction. Remonstrations upward were, as was the case with most officials, exceptional. Professor Bell also discussed Jiang Qing’s ideas for a tri-cameral legislature, with one house consisting of members selected by civil service exams. It won’t surprise students of Chinese history to learn that this idea was also long ago discussed, again by Sun Yat-sen as the final part of his tripartite+2 government.
Finally, I felt as if Professor Bell, in his desire to counteract more extreme criticisms of
I look forward to reading Professor Bell’s new book. (The crush of people at the end of the talk plus a slight shortage of cash at the time kept me from making an on-the-spot purchase. Anyone have a loaner?) Hopefully these ideas will be fully developed and more nuanced in print.
Professor Bell has been labeled an apologist by some, and that’s obviously unfair. His views do accord with the sentiments of the urban elite and the politically connected, not surprising given that Professor Bell teaches at Tsinghua University. I do also think that in his attempts to provide an alternative viewpoint to the drumbeat of human rights, rule of law, and political/legal reform coming from many Western sources, there is a danger of coming across as overly dismissive of the importance of those ideas to China’s continued development. Nevertheless, for as much as
17 responses so far ↓
1 Sam // Jun 12, 2008 at 10:59 am
Great post. It might inspire one from me tomorrow.
I wonder if there is something oxymoronic about “modern Confucianism.” Elements of pre-Qin Confucian texts seem fundamentally anti-modern (unsurprisingly, given their time). How can we square Mencius’s aversion to the profit motive with modern capitalism? And if we are willing to make certain compromises, in the interest of making Confucianism relevant for modern contexts, then at what point do we stop? Why shouldn’t we go further and simply accept a notion of individual rights as central, ultimately, to the modernizing project? The fall of state socialism in the Soviet Union and the rise of property rights in China suggest that collectivist forms of modernity are untenable after a few decades.
Bell is a social democrat, who, I believe, is interested in keeping alive possibilities of collectivist or communitarian modernity. I understand that interest. But I wonder if Confucianism-cum-social democracy can really exist in a capitalist world economy (yes, that was meant to have a Wallersteinian hint to it….)?
2 stuart // Jun 12, 2008 at 5:09 pm
But I fear Professor Bell may have, as the saying goes, ‘leaned too far to one side’ when he suggested on Tuesday that legal rights are not necessarily a primary prerequisite of development.
Sound like he’s about to join Phil Cunningham as one of Yang Rui’s Dialogue pals. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but there does seem to be a tendency for individuals to tow the party line to some extent when they have a place in the Sino- spotlight to protect.
Fascinating read again, Jeremiah - your output recently is dizzying.
3 Jeremiah // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:43 am
Sam,
Thanks for the comment. You raise a very interesting question and I look forward to reading and commenting on your thoughts over at The Useless Tree.
4 Jeremiah // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:52 am
Stuart,
I’ve noticed a similar tendency, but I wouldn’t go so far as to lump Professor Bell in with that crowd.
But, you’re right: there are folks in this town who feel the strategy of chugging the Kool-Aid and playing to the gallery on television, in print, and on the blogosphere will help them win friends and influence people.
It’s easy to fall into that trap. So often I’ve been in conversations here where ‘understanding China’ was code for ‘accepting the official line on politics/history/Tibet/Taiwan, etc.’
After awhile, you get tired of banging your head against the wall and the Kool-Aid starts looking tasty and refreshing.
5 nanfeng oranges » Blog Archive » Confuciusmania // Jun 13, 2008 at 10:09 am
[...] Spence’s Reith lectures, but I think the real force behind this (besides Confucius) is Daniel Bell and his new [...]
6 peony // Jun 14, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I hope you will write a book review post on the book. I would love to hear your thoughts and wonder if Singapore (the Singapoream model) will or not come into the picture. I am translating more and more documents by japanese business leaders saying, we want to practice capitalist economics our own way. “The American way is not the only way of playing the capitalist game,” they seem to be repeating the same thing over and over (especially in terms of quarterly profits)…
and I think there are already countries that have been doing well in Asia practicing variations of the liberal democratic/economic model– if they can, it doesn’t seem a stretch to think China would as well.
“Why shouldn’t we go further and simply accept a notion of individual rights as central, ultimately, to the modernizing project?”
That is the question, isn’t it? Did Japan and Singapore accept that notion as the *foundation* of their modern states? I would say, only to an extent and probably not to the extent you are talking about…
7 David of San Gabriel // Jun 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm
@Jeremiah,
“So often I’ve been in conversations here where ‘understanding China’ was code for ‘accepting the official line on politics/history/Tibet/Taiwan, etc.’”
Here is a simple guide for the amateur on the subject of “How to Understand China”:
1. Only the CCP is, has been, or ever will be able to guide the New China.
2. The CCP was quite correct in suppressing the students on June 4, 1989. Any sane government would have done the same thing. End of discussion.
3. Tibet has been an inalienable part of the Motherland since the Tang Dynasty.
4. Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of the Motherland since the Han Dynasty.
5. The Taiwanese are sneaky, cultureless American puppets. The Japanese are little barbarians. The Americans are big fat pompous hypocrites.
6. Any time any foreigner dares to criticize China, the CCP, or the CCP’s human rights record in any way, call them hypocrites and remember to cite examples of the “what the U.S. and Europeans have done” variety, such as: slavery, genocide against the native Americans, the Opium Wars, looting of Beijing in 1900, etc.
7. Yes, Chairman Mao made a few boo-boos. Who hasn’t? Things are much better now than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Any notion that the “unpleasantness” of 1959-61 was a result of anything but natural causes is lying western propaganda.
8. Make sure to praise the CCPs gallant response to the Sichuan quake and compare favorably with the evil Bush and his bumbling actions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Throw in a few insults directed at the evil b*tch Sharon Stone and the “human face with a wolf’s heart”, the Dalia Lama.
9. Anyone who criticizes the CCP is also slandering the Chinese people. Anyone who criticizes the CCP policies towards Tibet and/or Xinjiang is a “splittist” and/or a “terrorist lover”.
10. The Chinese will ask you, repeatedly, what you think of China. Remember that things are much better now than they were before, and that China is marching inexorably towards superpowerdom in spite of the efforts of the Yankee Imperialists to encircle and isolate her.
If you remember the above 10 principles above, you will be told that you “understand China” even if you have only lived there for 2 weeks and your vocabulary is limited to “ni hao ma?” Forget them, and even though you have a PhD. in East Asian history, speak fluent Mandarin, and have read the Chinese classics in the original, you are merely a jealous China-basher who will never understand the great Motherland and the Chinese people.
8 Jeremiah // Jun 15, 2008 at 8:28 am
Peony,
I’m actually scheduled to review the book over at The China Beat. Look for that post sometime early next month.
9 peony // Jun 15, 2008 at 9:28 am
I look forward to it!
10 peony // Jun 25, 2008 at 7:43 am
@david
“Forget them, and even though you have a PhD. in East Asian history, speak fluent Mandarin, and have read the Chinese classics in the original, you are merely a jealous China-basher who will never understand the great Motherland and the Chinese people.”
I wanted to respond to David’s comment when I first read it days ago but ran out of time. This is late coming but I wanted to say that it really struck me that the reason perhaps that you are not able to make your point effectively with Chinese people is because you are not “speaking the language.” Indeed, I have spent my entire adult life in Asia and the stuff above is exactly the stuff you read in expat blogs/boards or listening to groups of expats in bars throughout Asia– from Tokyo to Bangkok. A coincidence perhaps but just this morning the “ladies” in my foreign wives expat internet group were having the precise same discussion in terms of the Japanese: “How they want us to answer the following questions”– and they proceeded down to make lists of “pat answers” the Japanese expect to a series of questions. They actually worked themselves up to an excited self-congratulatory pitch! It was also marked by the same expat “supecilious” tone of your comment above
I am in the process of quiting all expat groups and refrain from contact with expats because of the intensely sweeping generalizations– which are common of monoglots who have huge blind spots with regard to their own cultural practices.
Regarding having a PhD and being able to read classical texts– I can only speak for my own field but in my field, the people I knew in grad school may have had a profound knowledge of Heian period texts but no, their graduate courses were no indication of cultural awareness nor of being truly lingusitically functional (quite the opposite). If they were to speak to a group of Japanese scholars in their field, I am quite sure theie opinions would be listened to and valued. On the other hand were they to write sweeping statements about Japanese politics or cultural practices (customs)– well, the Japanese would more than likely be annoyed. There is academic knowledge (including book knowledge of a language) and there is awarenese/know-how of how the language is actually used. If a Chinese person with a PhD showed up in San Gabriel and started piping up how annoyed they were (In fluent english no less!) because Americans are always asking him “how’s it going?” don’t want to hear the real answer– wouldn’t you think he was missing the point?
In the same way that I don’t find academic knowledge a perfect indicator or cultural awareness, I also don’t think the amount of time in a place affects the equation either. I particularly found this in HongKong, but also in Bangkok and Tokyo that many long timers are accused of being as ignorant of the culture as those who are “right off the boat.” In many cases I think it’s true. The day I left HK, I was listening to a bunch of expats in a bar and one said, “Here, we are leaving HK after 25 years and we don’t know how to say goodbye in Cantonese.” That is all well and good as long as they don’t go on with sweeping generalizations about the Chinese (which of course they had been doing).
(The above is not about David whom I don’t know but about expats in Asia in general).
To get past what i describe above as the monoglot’s fate is something I cannot really write much about except I think it has something to do with having friends (not lovers)– how many Chinese friends do you count as true friends and that you communicate with in Chinese not english? How embedded are you in your community? Are you a part of the community? And in my experience, perhaps most importantly– what local groups do you participate in that have nothing to do with race or nationality? Really, the question is how much are you functioning in the society as a member of that society?
No matter if it’s Singapore or Japan or Mainland China, there are groups you can volunteer with or work with to get your opinions heard in a constructive way that goes beyond sweeping generalizations and superciliousness– like the above. Or is that the purpose of the blog itself?
I know you are frustated but really is the above really productive or even interesting to anyone?
First, try and remove the implied comparisons which is the hallmark of the expat gripe: “well, in New Zealand we…” just say what you want to say *when and where appropriate* without the sarcasms and you might see better results. The thing is if you do not speak from within the culture it is going to sound like imperialistic and annoying big brother talk: you have heard it before but, “don’t talk to us about human rights in Tibet until you talk about the human rights of the people in your own inner cities.”
Again- this is not saying don’t speak up. I have always spoken my mind– especially in Japan since that is the language I speak– but I can tell you if people asked me, “What did you think of the Nagano Olympics” and I started on a lecture– well, it would be like a fart in church! Rather I answer greetings with greetings, but I vulunteer my time along with other japanese to evoke change where I can.
As the Japanese say its all about TPO.
David, was the tone of your comment really necessary?
As you can see I am frustrated. Living abroad presents many frustrations– particularly in East Asia there are challenges and yet…. I believe there are productive and constructive ways available to you for communicating. And Jeremiah, I hope your blog will retain what I thought was its academic and respectful content.
By arguing that China should adopt “free speech” in order to become a modern nation doesn’t make logical sense. There is the implied comparison that our way is the only game in town and that begs two very big questions that I am sure I don’t have to spell out to you. China should or should not embrace free speech based on internal factors and if you were to make arguments from within the cultural context your points would be so much more interesting, I think.
Very long winded/// and absolutely no offense intended.
11 Lindel // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:48 am
I recall that one flaw of confucianism dealt with the situation of what is the moral obligation of the son if the father commits a crime. I am not an expert, but did not Kongzi cop out and suggest that son still should honor the father. It seems to me that is the most critical. I would be curious to know if Professor Bell addressed this issue at all. Academia seems to shy away from directly addressing the core simple obvious issues that are often the most relevant to society or immediate policy and opt to dally in the weeds of complicated details in order to obfuscate and build a large moat between the ivory tower and practical immediate needs of the daily mundane world on the other side of the moat.
Also I understand the founding fathers also had an interest in confucian views on politicals. Kongzi believed in cultivating the individual to instill virtue in the individual, The founding fathers believed the same but also recognized that man is an imperfect creature and that appropriate checks and balances are needed in any governmental system to ensure that the harm from a snake pretending to be virtuous man can be minimized and the pretended removed from a position of authority. The modern chinese government seems more concerned about circling the waggons and protecting corrupt officials in Tibet and Sichuan responsible for causing social unrest in the TAR and being responsible for collapsed school buildings that they will not allow the sons (grieving parents) to express anger at the fathers (government officials) responsible. Seems like confucianism can also be a wall for fathers without virtue to hide behind.
12 Jeremiah // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:33 am
Peony,
Thank you for your long and thoughtful comment which raises a number of issues, more than, I am afraid, I have time to deal with at the moment; but suffice to say you have given us all quite a bit to think about.
I might gently suggest that while a certain amount of expat griping goes on all over Asia–certainly everywhere I’ve been–there are key issues in China perhaps not quite applicable to a more open society such as Japan.
In many ways the commenters on this board are responding to an increasingly shrill discourse emanating from a rising tide of Chinese cyber-nationalism which is in turn spawned, in part, by an educational and information environment carefully managed by the CCP.
While I agree that inflammatory rhetoric is not particularly helpful in solving the problem, those of us who daily subject ourselves to the inanities of Chinese-language BBSs and internet sites, not to mention the forays into the English-language blogosphere in spaces such as the Time Magazine blog or The Peking Duck, do occasionally lose our cool and for this I apologize.
But by way of example–a small one at that–I’d like to, again gently, suggest that issues such as ethnic relations and free speech are related, important, and worth framing in a comparative context. Is the state of race relations in the US deplorable? Yes. Would it be any better if the government suppressed any discussion of race and ethnicity? Absolutely not. Would ethnic relations in China be improved or worsened by research, debate, and critical analysis? Who knows, but it’s certainly a subject worth debating, not as a club against “China,” but as constructive criticism coming from those whose country knows a thing or two too much about the deleterious effects of unresolved racial tensions.
Another example, and a frustrating one at that, is that I am currently unable to read your blog. The original site is blocked, and now the most common tool for accessing blocked sites, anonymouse, is also blocked. This is both an inconvenience to me, and, I feel, a sign of something more insidious. When I encounter such things, I write about them. It’s what I do.
Finally, I agree that the tone of debate here has generally escaped the descent into madness seen on the more popular blogs, but I also have not censored this space for anything other than profane language or obvious ad hominem attacks on another person. I feel that allowing inane comments from both sides to take their positions in the marketplace of ideas in the hope that more thoughtful heads, such as yours, prevail in the end and the moonbats exposed for who and what they are.
Again, thanks for your commentary and your continued support of the blog.
13 peony // Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hi Jeremiah,
Nice to hear from you– and basically we agree. However, I did want to respond to two points in the spirit of bi-lateral relations (ours). The expression in your last comment (just above) at frustration over censorship– was very much undestandable. In contrast, what I was trying to (perhaps unsuccessfully) bring up was the expat griping of, “well in America, we…” stuff because truly, Ben Franklin and any balance of powers according to the US constitution are not as helpful (in my opinion) as keeping to the historical and cultural context (at the very least, keeping the conversation to philosophical principles which the speaker should explicitely name) would seve as a better tool for communication than sarcasm and implied (often straight-out stated explictely too) comparisons which is the hallmark of what I call the expat gripe!
And you see, the ironic thing is that many of the gripes have absolutely nothing to do with an authoritarian government or regime. The Chinese– like many others in this part of the world– would not appreciate “big brother” comments on the Olympics or anything else no matter what their current government– as that is really a cultural issue– not a political one. That was my main point actually that much of the dialog I am seeing is identical to what goes on here in japan– despite the fact that yes things are more open. And yet, and yet…
Anyway, I have procrastinated here at your place long enough…. work is waiting. If by any chance you know anything about the english translations of the 3 types of ink used in Chinese ink painting, I could use some advice for a translation deadline– you know where to find me (that is unless you are blocked…)
Have a good one,
Peony
14 Cao Meng De // Jun 27, 2008 at 2:01 am
@Peony
Great Website!
I am curious about the reference for “all the peonies of Chang’an”.
Are you referring to Empress Wu Ze Tian’s banishment of the flower?
15 peony // Jun 27, 2008 at 5:09 am
@Cao Meng De
Thank you! No, you probably already figured out the reference but its from the poem 登科後
http://tosando.ptu.jp/shi2000-2.html
by 孟郊 (meng jiao)
My tea teacher has a garden full of the biggest peonies you have ever seen– huge flowers, each is bigger than a child’s head. When they bloom, her garden is utterly transformed– from a delicate undestated world of mossy rocks and small trees to this riot of really almost scandalous red.
Having seen the splendor of her small garden full of giant peonies I can image the poet’s absolute, unabaounded joy at having passed the coveted exam: like seeing all the peonies of chang’an.
The translation of the poem on my site is from Inoue’s novel Tun-huang (that is the english name/I am not making a political statement in my spelling)–
Inoue, in my opinion is one of the few Japanese writers who really translate well into english, and that book was a really great english translation– that I think reads just like the japanese.
But, you know, back to the peonies, it can be maddening waiting for them to bloom– hence the empress’ understandable anger!
Have a good one.
16 Cao Meng De // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:51 am
@peony
Yes, I found out after continuing on your site.
Junya Sato of Yamato fame made a movie based Inoue’s novel also titled Dun Huang (named Silkroad in English version which is unfortunately abridged). It was in late 80s. I remember watching it in China as a little kid. I believe it’s possibly the first Sino-Japanese joint film production.
I also remember reading some Chinese commentators in Chinese newspapers criticize the movie with its full Japanese cast as donning the cloth of Chinese history to reflect the glory of Yamato spirit. Sometimes there is just no pleasing everyone. As is evident from some of the posters here.
At the time, I just thought the movie was really cool. Have never seen film with such high production value before, My friends and I were quite blown away by the numerous well orchestrate battle scenes. Incidentally, it also piqued my interest in Central Asian history.
You make me want a garden full of peonies now. I am gonna call Mom to see if she could coax peonies to bloom in North Carolina.
17 peony // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:59 am
@Cao Meng De
I’m dying to get my hands on the DVD actually. I really recommend the book, as well. And, you’re right, you can’t please all the people all the time (it remains the story of my life, in fact, 泣！）
Hmmm, peonies in North Carolina…In California it is impossible. They need cold or frost perhaps? If your mom says it’s a go, be sure to let me know.
Leave a Comment