The Trouble with Confucianism (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values) - Tapa dura

It is a pleasure to read a book by a fine scholar who is not distracted from his discussion of the evolution of Confucianism from the time of Confucius himself (who drew on earlier traditions) by the trouble Confucianists had, and created, over the millennia. Gu Jiegang, who said we should study one Confucius at a time--he changed from a historical figure to a mythological one (even a magician) and a sage--would have liked this book.

At the time of the Cultural Revolution in China, Confucius was so shadowy a figure in most people's minds that the Gang of Four had to first resurrect him before he could be pilloried and crucified. Yet, since that time, he has continued to haunt the scene. Despite this rejuvenated attention, his status is still unclear. In Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and other parts of West and Southeast Asia, as well as China, people are asking, "What does Confucianism have to offer today?" For some, Confucius is still the symbol of a reactionary and repressive past. For others he is the humanist admired by generations of scholars and thinkers, East and West. Much depends on whose Confucianism one is considering, its time and place. De Bary explains the puzzling role and ambiguous character of Confucianism as a liberal humanist teaching that is often appropriated to serve conservative regimes. He discusses the tension between the ideal of the Noble Man in Confucius and Mencius and the figure of the exemplary sage-king turned authoritarian in the Imperial dynasties. On the basis of evidence from both early Confucian teachings and historical developments, de Bary questions the Weberian characterization of Confuciansim as a philosophy of acceptance and accommodation, lacking a critical voice or capability for self-transformation. Instead, he sees Confucianism as involving a prophetic voice, identified with the Noble Man as spokesman for the people's welfare, but assigning no responsibility to the people for acting on their own behalf. Institutionally this view became embodied in a two-class structure, a bureaucratic ruling class governing people with no power or responsibility and later the one-party state, dominated by a communist elite.