Back
to Vietnamese Missionaries in Taiwan Home PageThe social and political theories of Confucius are of undeniable value for mankind, not because they are metaphysically or systematically superior to other theories, but because they are the most concrete and practicable; they are crystallized from the human most concrete human experiences of life, most desires and efforts to solve problems and to attain desired goals. The way of solving problems, namely the politics that Confucius proposed, is worth a careful study. In this paper, I take the consensus theory of Habermas not as a model but as a modern example to throw more light on the way Confucius had tried to construct a theory of political life. The Habermasian consensus, which is mainly constructed from the materials of the life-world, human praxis, human capacity of achieving progress, and human commonality such as language, is taken not as equivalent to the Confucian harmony. Indeed, it is used as a pure strategy to shed new light on our way of acting, of understanding the human way of living and of constructing a rational society. Politics is understood here not in the common sense used by politicians or political scientists but in the sense of the Greek polis and Zoon politikon, namely the human acts of achieving their commonality, their Gemeinschaft. By taking harmony and consensus as the topic of our discussion, we by no means want to compare Confucius and Habermas. It is an impossible task. As a matter of fact, the temporal and spatial distance, the diversity of lifestyle, the divergence of cultures and ideologies render any comparison between them arbitrary. Our aim is to dig deeper under the surface of their difference or similarity. In other words, we wish to detect the original acts of human beings, namely the noesis or the dynamis power and not the noema or the formal structure of social phenomena. Harmony and consensus are defended by Confucius and Habermas as the end and means (noesis) of politics.
To attain this goal, we choose the strategy used by Derrida. We deconstruct the two central tenets of Chung-yung, equality (or centrality) and commonality in order to reconstruct them. We show here that the Confucianist harmony cannot be taken for granted. It is taken to throw more light on the nature of harmony; harmony as a democratic and objective inter-communicative act. Consensus, in its genetic process also bears a similarity to the Confucian harmony; both are constructed on the most original human acts of communication, i.e. the acts of mutual understanding, of achieving and defending the common interests. After deconstructing the Confucianist politics, and after tentatively taking Habermas' consensus, we arrive at a thesis that:
- In order to restore the efficiency of Confucian politics, one needs to remove the superficial, ideological and distorted character imposed by the Confucianists on politics.
- By constructing politics on harmony, Confucius did not understand politics as an art of dominating but as a way of living in the world. His politics is close to the Greek Polis and Zoon politikon.
- The way of living or politics is primarily established from the human commonality in praxis.
- The nature of commonality (harmony) lies in the way man rationally distributes gods or interests, i.e. consensus.
As we have mentioned elsewhere , the concept of Ho or synthesis means neither an identity of the subject with the object, nor that of the subject with other subjects. That is to say, harmony means not a simple identification or unity between man and nature, man and other men, man and God etc. The presentation of harmony in Confucianism aims at pointing out that:
- on the epistemological level, harmony is against any dualism or monism. It is far different from the principle of identity embraced by logicians.
- On the praxis level, harmony is dialectical in the Hegelian sense, i.e. in the sense that it neither excludes the external world, nor simply affirms the subjective absolute, but insists on the Aufhebung character of human acts, of social life and of scientific development. To discuss the concept of harmony in depth, such a distinction is necessary. But that is by no means to assert that such a distinction is real. A distinction is necessary only for the sake of matter of fact, in Confucianism or in Habermasism, any definite separation between theory and praxis is unacceptable. In this context, we need to keep in mind that the Cartesian idea clara et distincta serves only for a more precise understanding. It would destroy however the total meaning of philosophy if one just stops at that.
Nowaday, the term harmony appears everyday on the front-pages of the press, on the tongue of every politician, educator, ordinary person and especially every administrator and ruler. This phenomenon can be understood in different ways. It may express a desire of peace and progress; it may reflect the increasing social conflicts and unrest; it may follow the tradition of repeating the precious principle of life of the past. However, it is more true that harmony today appears as a mere slogan, which though not empty quite yet, already shows its ineffectiveness and impotence. The ambiguity of the term is badly treated and misused by politicians and administrators for their interests. As seen in the history of the Confucianist oriented society. The point is however, what kind of harmony they are talking about. Precisely here is the central theme of our discussion.
Harmony is usually accepted as a principle of administration, regulation, or more correctly, as a principle of life. Thus it is out of question to raise doubts about such an understanding. Our point here is, if harmony is universally accepted and practiced as an absolute principle of life, then why do social conflicts, political conflicts, religious conflicts and even familial conflicts still emerge unresolved? What is at fault here? Obviously, the point lies not in the fact of acceptance of harmony but in the understanding of harmony. One may argue that, either the ambiguity of the term harmony is to be faulted, or it is the people who have misused it. But if the reasons for social conflicts are so simple, if the problem of understanding is so easy, then the solution must be also easy and simple. The rectification of names proposed by Confucius could be the best one. In our views, the arguments and the solutions relying on the rectification of names appear to be insufficient. The fact that the people misunderstand harmony, cannot be referred only to the ambiguity of the term. The misunderstanding comes rather from the human way of constructing, using and manipulating it. As a matter of fact, by definition, no one would cast doubt on the meaning of harmony as a peaceful, conflict-free and reciprocal art of living. In this sense, a simple 'rectification of names', or a clear and distinct idea of harmony seems to be obsolete in explaining the continuing emergence of conflicts. It is to be added, the theory of rectification of names in the original Confucianism, could not be understood as simply as the politicians understood it.
Actually, our problems lie not there, but deeper in the genetic process of the ambiguity of harmony. We see the emergence of the ambiguity as an inevitable fact, so long as its root, namely the human capacity and way of understanding human acts, are still unexplored. Thus, in order to treat fairly and authentically the human capacity and the human way of understanding, a need for a rational critique of the nature of harmony must be acknowledged. In this part, we will focus on a general understanding of the nature of harmony understood in the traditional Confucianism as orders, arts (art of appropriation, art of living, art of enjoyment), purposive-instrumental rationality. The etymological significance of harmony is left to the final part of reconstructing harmony as a consensual, communicative act by means of dialogical discourse.
My sketch of harmony relies heavily on the description of harmony given by Thome Fang, a noted philosopher and former professor at the National Taiwan University and FuJen University. Fang's description of harmony is rich in content. It is more than simple information. It can be regarded as one of the most encompassing descriptions of harmony in Chinese philosophy. Although I respect his description, I reserve the right to implement some of his descriptions.
According to Fang, harmony could be understood in terms of cosmic order, human order, moral order, aesthetic order and political order. Similarly, Derk Bodde understood harmony in terms of cosmic pattern, social (historical and temporal) pattern, moral pattern and social pattern.
I find these descriptions insightful, but their classification is insufficient in terms of system and dialectics. Thus, I rearrange its classification in the following order:
- harmony as order
- natural order
- established order- (traditional order - moral codes - laws)
- harmony as art
- art of appropriation
- art of living
- art of enjoyment (aesthetic art)
- harmony as instrumental-purposive rationality
The classification of harmony is intentionally constructed after the model of Chinese dialectics: nature, man and Heaven (T'ien). The third feature of harmony as a sheer instrument is included not as a real manifestation of harmony but to show how distorted and manipulated in the hands of the legalists. By using the critique of Thome Fang with regard to the Western understanding of harmony, one could say the same with regard to the legalists understanding of harmony : "In a word, the extreme importance of harmony is either simply ignored or hopelessly misconstrued".
In describing harmony, Thome Fang noted:
"For several thousands of years, we Chinese have been thinking of these vital problems in terms of comprehensive harmony which permeates anything and everything. It sounds like an eternal symphony swaying and swinging all the sky, all the earth, all the air, all the water, merging all forms of existence in one supreme bliss of unity. The Chinese speculation has been centering on the three chief problems of Nature, man and Men's cultural achievement".
To be fair, the description of harmony of Fang is a non-descriptive insight into the nature of harmony as comprehensive, united and eternal. It has pinpointed the various forms of the manifestation of harmony. But it gives little help in understanding why and how harmony comes to be why harmony can serve as the principle of the moral rules, how the society could self-transform and self-construct. These questions and especially the genesis of harmony cannot be simply explained by saying "knowledge in harmony is called perennial. It is not an explication in terms of scientific demands. Confucius might have explained better:
"When true moral being, and moral orders are realized, the universe then becomes a cosmos and all things attain their full growth and development."
Or:
'...the moral laws form one system with the laws by which Heaven and Earth support and contain, overshadow and canopy all things. It is this system of laws by which all created things are produced and develop themselves each in its order and system without injuring one another."
The description of harmony by Confucius reveals a fact that harmony, in its most concrete forms or manifestations, could be described as orders which are either natural or established. As natural order, harmony is shaped in accordance with the dynamic living way of natural. As established orders, we understand the rules, moral codes, laws etc. Which are formed or constructed mainly by man himself, the purpose of which is to solve, regulate, maintain the social and familial states.
Nature here is understood in terms of outer and inner nature. Outer nature or the cosmological and physical nature , expresses the outside, fully independent from man, while inner nature is directly related to the corporeal and spiritual man. In a word, by nature, we understand the way of moving, acting, transforming, constructing in a free, uncoercive and autonomous manner. In this sense, natural orders are in contrast to the established orders. The division of inner and outer nature, of natural orders and established orders are of only relative significance. It serves only as a methodological strategy, the purpose of which is to make the Chinese view on nature more modern and comprehensive. As a matter of fact, the universe or nature is a comprehensive realm, a magnificent realm of the "concresence of universal life".
According to our distinction of natural order and established order, we have stated that natural order is spontaneous, free, unmanipulated and that it is divided into two kinds: inner and outer natural order respectively. The characteristics of natural order such as spontaneity, immediacy, universality etc. are in fact shaped, understood and constructed in accordance with the character of nature. Like nature which expresses life, love, development, unity, harmony and extensive connection, the natural order is constituted from sic cosmological principles: principle of life, principle of love, principle of creative advance, principle of primordial unity, principle of equilibrium and harmony and principle of extensive connection.
- As a principle of life, natural order is the expression of a) the fulfillment through generation of new species, b) the expansion through ever new achievements, c) perpetual creativity, d) the emergence of novelty from what is already accomplished in the continual process of change and transformation and e) finally, the efficacious efforts to attain actual immortality.
- As principle of love (erotic impulse), natural order is seen in a) the mutual embrace of yin and yang, b) the union of male and female, c) the matrimony of man and woman, d) the happy interaction of heaven and earth, and f) the established order of Chien and Kun representing the powers of origination and procreation.
- As a principle of creative advance, natural order manifest the dynamic and creative movement of cosmos such as creation, procreation, formation, transformation, development etc...
- As a principle of equilibrium and harmony, natural orders are conceived in terms of equality, unselfishness, permeation by 'empathy and sympathy', freedom and comprehensive togetherness of life.
- A a principle of extensive connection, natural order expresses the inner relationship between all things in terms of creativity, values, novelty and integration.
From the above characterization of natural order, one discovers that they are completely apt to the outer and inner features of nature. Because man is conceived of as a part of Mother Nature, he or she is expected to inherit the same nature, and to act in accordance with his or her nature. Disorder or disharmony emerges once man fails to follow the natural order. That is to say, harmony means acting according to the natural order.
It is not of our intention to examine whether or not the natural order conforms to physical and biological nature. The progress of science has made many old ideas on nature obsolete. Our point is, granted such a view on nature is valid, then there are still a lot of problems to be solved such as whether or not the application of natural order on human life is valid. A false understanding of nature is certainly followed by a misinterpretation and false application of nature. But even a correct understanding of nature does not yet mean it could be applied to human life. The Confucian idea that human order is established after the natural order must be reexamined.
Unlike Western morality and laws which are built on an idea of God, a priori imperatives, the Chinese morals, laws, i.e. the established orders, are constructed by human beings in accordance with their fundamental characteristics (activities, mentalities). In Chinese expression, they are built in accordance with human nature. This idea is plausible so long as one can describe what human nature is, and determine whether or not the so called human nature is true, undistorted, unmanipulated, unalienated. The later point is of our concern.
The Chinese view of human nature, as noted, comes from its view of nature. That is to say, there is hardly a difference between cosmic activity and human activity:
"The Confucians are eager to seek after the ordinance of God in order to fulfill life in accordance with the fundamental principle of equilibrium. The Taoists are eager to go by the primordial root of Tao in order to embrace all beings in its sympathetic unity. Mo-tzu and his followers are desirous to become identified with the Will of Heaven in order to practice universal love for the complete satisfaction of life. The do all of these things for the reason that the ordinance of God, the primordial root of Tao, and the Will of Heaven are the very Headspring of universal life."
The discussion of human nature as good or bad by Mencius and Hsun-tzu respectively is still lively today, partly from the difference in perceiving the nature of people.
Putting aside the dispute on human nature, we concentrate rather on another question no less fundamental, i.e., if nature is objective and universal, then the established orders should also be universal and necessary. We discover that the established orders, in the presentation of the Confucianists, are of different values. That means, the established ore not wholly built after the model of natural order, but after the social situation, human interests and human aspiration. In a more concrete expression, established orders are divided into customs, moral ideas and laws. In Chinese dialectical order, the established orders could be arranged in the following line: customs, laws and morality. All three kinds of orders are extensively used as political and social principles. In the Doctrine of the Mean and in the Great Learning, moral ideas, political principles, social customs are well articulated as the most fundamental human orders which can help establish a harmonious, prosperous happy life. The peaceful world, the prosperous state, the orderly society and the happy family are to be attained because they primarily serve as a mean making man happy.
- First, in the Great Learning, Confucius summed up the established orders in 'three items': the clear character of man, loving the people and abiding in the highest good, and in 'eight steps': the investigation of things, the extension of knowledge, the sincerity of the will, the rectification of the mind, the cultivation of the personal life, the regulation of the family, national order and peace.
- Second, in the Doctrine of The Mean, he understood harmony in terms of fulfilling the moral virtues which are established orders. In this book, the established orders (or moral principles) are constructed on 12) the relationship between Heaven and Man 2) the human intersubjective and social relations 3) the human self-reflection on his or her destiny. All these orders rely on the two principles of harmony and equilibrium of Mother Nature.
Slowly but clearly, one detects that the established orders are understood as social customs (built on human relationships, familial kinship), social laws (the regulation of family, of the state, and of the world ) and moral ideas.
- Third, only with the increasing domination of the Confucianists, the established orders as laws and moral ideas are well articulated and emphasized. The legalists e.g. have developed the Confucian idea of taking the standard rules of Jen to be the rules of human behavior. They are going to the extreme of taking rules and laws to replace the Confucian categories of Jen, Li, and Yi . Thus, it is no surprise to learn that even the penal law is regarded as natural order. They just ignored the fact that Confucius himself had made a clear distinction between natural law and established law: 'Noble men will violate the dictates of righteousness while small men will violate the penal law.' As noted, penal law means from the very outset a pattern or model forcefully imposed from above. Thus, laws in the hand of legalists become, in Weber's expression, a zwecksrationalitat or an instrumental rationality which is designed to devise the means appropriate to the achievement of a certain goal. This goal could be 'the enrichment of the state and the strengthening of its military capacity', or the consolidation of the shih class. By any means, laws are seen as the instrument of social control (note that the legalists emphasized fa (Lord Shang), shu (shen pu-hai), i.e. bureaucratic method, or technique, and shih, i.e. authority (shen tao). Perhaps the legalists argued that their law are constructed after the model of human nature. Lord Shang proclaims for example: "the tendency of the people to pursue its interests is like the tendency of water to flow downward". Han fei-tzu argued: "in ruling the world one must follow the bent of man's true nature (jen Ch'ing). Man's nature is based on his likes and dislikes. Thus rewards and penalties can be effectively used.
Because rewards and penalties can be used, prohibitions and commands can be implemented, and thus good order can be actualized. The rules hold the handles in order to establish his authority. Since our aim is limited to a sketchy description of the established orders, it is sufficient to note that harmony is seen in orders but orders (moral principles, laws) are also built on harmony. Confucius describes harmony as:
"Before the feeling of pleasure, anger and sorrow, and joy are aroused, it is called equilibrium( chung, centrality, mean). When these feelings are aroused and each and all attain due measure and degree, it is called harmony. Equilibrium is the great foundation of the world, and harmony is its universal path. When equilibrium and harmony are realized to the highest degree, heaven and earth will attain their proper order and all things will flourish."
By art, we understand the manner and way of expressing human living world. Thus, art is not limited to the aesthetic world, but extends to the whole of all human activities. Theme Fang conceives art as the expression of exuberant vitality, a 'miniature pocket edition deluxe' of the miraculous cosmic creation as the spirit of humanism. In this sense, harmony is understood in terms of the arts of appropriation, of living and of enjoyment. We will concentrate particularly on the art of appropriation, because it is of particular value for an understanding of Chinese politics.
The Doctrine of the Mean is without doubt a guide in Chinese politics. Tu Wei-ming interpreted it as Centrality and Commonality. Tu's translation of chung as centrality and Yung as commonality is correct in terms of etymology; it is in line with the common translation of chung as middle, central etc. Chan Wing-tsit, understood Chung Yung in the same way, though he added two terms, loyalty and fidelity, to Chung. However, this kind of interpretation did not reveal all the hidden meanings, especially the political and social meanings of Chung Yung. Thome Fang used the term 'empathy' for chung and sympathy for Yung. Empathy, in Fang's interpretation, means also equilibrium. He explained that it is more suitable than the common understanding of Chung as loyalty and fidelity. Though I am reluctant to accept the terms empathy and sympathy, I share part of his view for a certain number of reasons: 1) the common understanding of Chung as loyalty and fidelity might have been constructed not after the natural order (i.e. the objective criteria of natural sciences), but by a subject, a regime or a class (shi e.g.) It could be a political product. We wonder how and when fidelity and loyalty were exalted into the principle of life. 2) The term "centrality", though much better than loyalty and fidelity, is still ambiguous. We do not know for sure what kind of centrality it is. It is often understood as unity, or of a kind of reduction of all into one. It could express also the centralist on-process, but it does not express or manifest the middle way. In terms of politics, centrality risks being manipulated or misused. 3) Fang's empathy as equilibrium, in terms of aesthetics, is understood after they way of nature. It is more objective. However, relating to Fang's rendition of Yung as sympathy, one can hardly accept his view. Professors Chan and Tu's commonality has a greater advantage than Fang's sympathy. Yung expresses the commonality, the common nature and the common interests of human beings. In short, Chung Yung, or the Golden Means speaks for itself as the most objective, equal and natural way of attaining a human goal (interests). We have here a paragraph demonstrating such a characteristic; Confucius said to the Duke of Lu:
"If you want to know Chung, you must know equality(or equilibrium) beforehand; before equality, you must know commonality; before commonality, you must know externality; before externality, you must know virtue."
To be fair, all translations have their merits and failures in rendering the meaning of Chung Yung. The main reasons are 1) the translator must face modernity, i.e. the whole process of protest, continuation, renovation...of the past 2) the milieu where they live makes them understand Chung Yung differently and 3) different ideological backgrounds as well as 4) socio-cultural change. The difficulty of a scientific hermeneutics lies precisely in these four reasons.
By taking the translation of Chung Yung as an example, we wish to point out that, like Chung Yung, harmony, as the goal and means of life, is reduced to a certain kind of principle determining our political and moral conduct. In the same way, harmony as the art of appropriating is dogmatized into a kind of submission, of being dominated, of blind obedience etc. As often happened, appropriation is interpreted in line with the established orders. As a matter of fact, in Chung Yung, harmony as appropriation appears in almost all chapters, in different expressions:
- Appropriation as follows the natural way (ch/ 1,2,3,11,12) ch. 3 e.g.: "Perfect is the Mean. For a long time few people have been able to follow it."
- Appropriation as a free submission to the Natural way: "He does not complain against Heaven above or blame men below" or "Thus it is that the superior man lives peacefully and at ease and wants for his destiny (ming, Mandate, Fate) of Heaven.
- Appropriation as following socially established patterns.
- Appropriation as respecting the socially required laws.
- Appropriation as living in accordance with social customs.
From the above descriptions, appropriation could be understood as following, respecting, submission, living in accordance with laws etc. However, these acts do not yet mean harmony. Harmony could be seen only from the point of view of how man follows, respects, on why man ought to live in accordance with laws. Actually, according to Confucius, each act of respecting, following, submitting contains an undeniable interest: "to serve my father as I would expect my son to serve me. To serve my ruler as I would expect my ministers to serve me."
In our tentative analysis, the term appropriation as following the Way could be more consistent. It fits the schema of harmony (Nature, Man, and Heaven). As submission or respecting laws, this kind of appropriation could be an interpretation invented to fit the demands of the ruling class, or to keep the status quo.
It is not our intention to go into details of the art of living. It is sufficient to us to know that, according to Confucius, the art of living is identified with Life itself. Thus, a happy life requires a right art of living. According to him, the art of living consists in cultivating the personal life "From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation." Then he catalogued the rules of cultivation such as manifesting the clear character, loving people and abiding by the highest good. For the common people, the rules of personal cultivation should be: rectify the mind, have a sincere will, extend knowledge and learn. All in all, the art of living is living in accordance with the natural order or established orders. That means, harmony is the root of such an art of living.
It is well know that Confucius regarded aesthetics as a part of life. He told his disciples "to aim at the Tao, to abide by the virtues, to lean on love and to be well versed in arts."
Thome Fang noted: "Only he who has an ardent love for the wondrous beauty of fine arts can become a perfect man through the apprehension of Tao and the cultivation of virtues." Actually, aesthetic arts, like the art of living, render human life more meaningful, because aesthetic arts are the expression of harmony. In the Analects, one found a great number of texts indication it. "The master said, 'my children, why do you not study the Book of Poetry?" the Odes serve to stimulate the mind. They may be used for purposes of self-contemplation. They teach the art of sociality. They show how to regulate feelings of resentment."
In a word, aesthetic arts are the measures of equilibrium and harmony as Hsun-tzu acknowledged: "Music represents the great symphony of the universe, embodying the principles of equilibrium and harmony, and is indispensable in the enjoyment of human life" or "Hence a spiritual atmosphere of music is created in which the aerial bright notes are emblematic of Heaven, the ample and grand are emblematic of earth, the tenor, the bass, and the rhythms are the images of the four seasons."
In this sense, it is beyond any doubt that aesthetic arts are considered as important as harmony. Thome Fang resumed the characteristics of arts in the following points:
- Chinese art is the expression of exuberant vitality; it is metaphysical
rather than scientific.
- It is symbolic in significance.
- Its method is genuine expression.
- It is beautifully tinged with the spirit of humanism.
In a word, all those characteristics are that of harmony itself.
Our analysis of the established orders and of arts as appropriation reveals a fact: harmony is understood both in terms of the natural way and the human artificial way. That is to say, the way and the function of manipulating the natural way for the purpose of human interests. The later function is the result of the feudal structural society. The question of how such a manipulation could emerge and how harmony becomes an instrument worth a careful analysis. The history of feudalism, began with King Wu. His son was chosen by himself as the inheritor. He gave his son a mission of keeping the status quo of his regime. Since, the fact was accepted, it became law. But such law contradicts the natural way of development and progress. It contradicts also the spirit of harmony of I-king, and of Confucius himself. Confucius was reluctant and uneager to accept this fact. For this reason, there are a great number of passages contradicting the Confucian harmony. In fact, what Confucius promoted is an ideal politics which is in conformity with the natural way. Huang Tsung-hsi, for example, noted:
"There used to be ideal rulers who were interested neither in private benefits nor in private injuries of their own. What they were most concerned about is the enjoyment of the common good and the avoidance of the public evils for all the people in the world.
However, after Confucius, the Confucianists interpreted (and most probably altered the text of Chung Yung) the Confucian idea in conformity with the wishes of the rulers:
"The rulers of later periods..., gratified with the perverted use of the political power in their hands, did everything ruthlessly to acquire all the benefits for themselves and to let the rest of the people suffer the injuries... thus, regarding what were really selfish interests as the common good, at first with some sense of shame, but finally without any. The wealth of the whole nation was, then, taken to be their private property which their descendants would inherit for lavish enjoyment."
The misinterpretation of Chung Yung comes directly from a misinterpretation of harmony as an instrument or, better, a political slogan. Harmony, originally as the principle of politics, is degraded into a form of rationality described by Weber.
According to Weber , rationality today can be understood only in the line of the process of rationalization. Though Weber's rationalization is extremely complex, we could summarize it in the following features: 1) rationalization refers to the growth in mathematization of experience and knowledge, namely, the shaping of all scientific practice according to the model of the natural sciences and the extension of scientific rationality to morality. 2) Rationalization could be described as the process of the secularization of the modern world, i.e. intellectualization or disenchantment of the world. 3) Rationalization leads to a growth of mean-end rationality. That is, one is tending toward the use of an increasingly precise calculation of means in order to attain his or her goal. 4) Even in the field of ethics, rationalization has transformed morality into a certain kind of utilitarianism and pragmatism, or in Weber's own words, "ethics that are sytematically and unambiguously oriented to fixed goals".
The transformation of rationality as a form logos into a sheer instrument in Western history happened also in the history of Chinese culture. Harmony as the rationality of the natural way, and thus, of human conduct is degraded into a tool, freely interpreted by the rulers, with the purpose of maintaining the status quo. In this context, harmony could be understood by them as: accommodating ourselves to the rules or the models fixed by them, obeying their orders without protesting, blindly accepting fate without knowing what the fate is.
The translation of Chung into fidelity and loyalty for example is the result of such a mentality. Thus, if rationality is the best tool available in the technological world, then harmony could be the best instrument of consolidating the ruler's interests.
The texts of The Analects and The Doctrine of the Mean clearly point out that harmony is not only a mean of achieving the ideal status but it is itself the goal of politics:
"Yu Tzu said, "Among the functions of propriety (li) the most valuable is that it establishes harmony. The excellence of the ways of ancient kings consists in this. It is the guiding principle of all things great and small. If things go amiss, and you, understanding harmony, try to achieve it without regulating it by the rules of propriety, they will still go amiss."
Thus, harmony must be understood first as the goal of our politics, and then as the way of attaining a harmonious political life. Because harmony is described as happiness, as the manifestation of the Tao, it is evident that a happy life must be a harmonious life: a life of integration, free of conflicts. The interest in harmony, in a happy life is of major concern not only in Confucianism but also in Taoism and Buddhism later. Without doubt, harmony is the goal of life. The problem arises from another angle, i.e. from the way of how to achieve such harmony. Until now, we have described harmony from the perspective of metaphysics, i.e. harmony as the end, and we have idealized our politics in this way. In reality, politics aims at realizing harmony first by harmonizing the conflicts. The conflicts are personal, social or even natural. In this limited paper, we concentrate rather on the social conflicts. The ways of harmonizing social conflicts proposed by Chinese philosophers are of great variety. The Taoist proposed ignoring the root of conflicts by practicing Wu-Wei ( ). The legalists insisted on penal laws. The Confucianists, though better than Taoists and Legalists, emphasized morality. The point lies unresolved: they rarely touched the central kernel of conflicts: human interests. It is true that man is interested in a happy life, that a happy life is a harmonious, conflict-free life, that a happy life is a harmonious, conflict-free life, but harmony is possible only if these human interests are harmonized, namely in an equal, rational, human and acceptable-for-all way. The misinterpretation of harmony continues as long as these interests are untouched.
As we have stated, in order to understand harmony, it is not enough to go to the texts of Chung Yung or Lun-Yu. We need to go behind the facade of moral ideas in order to discover its ideological mask. In this part, we intend to show that an ideological harmony in its hidden essence is a distorted consensus. Both have their essence as domination. Both have used the same logic and both are the causes of Realpolitik.
The fact that most of Confucius' writings are not completely authentic, that a great part of his ideas are "revised, reinterpreted" is undeniable. Chan Wing-tsit, for example, noted in his now well known book, A source Book in Chinese Philosophy " It is correct then to say that the Neo-Confucianists drew their inspiration from them (The Great Learning, the Book of Changes) or made use of them to support their own ideas..." On the book of the Doctrine of the Mean , he stated in a footnote: "The work is not consistent either in style or in thought. It may be a work of more than one person over a considerable period in the fifth or fourth century B.C."
This fact makes us suspicious of the descriptions of harmony in the works of Confucius. Which kind of harmony is the authentic one. It could be seen in the corpus Confucii, i.e. in the whole works of Confucius. One could determine whether or not such and such a description is consistent with others. Our aim is not resting in the archeological work; thus we proceed rather with an analysis of the distorted or ideological character of harmony. According to the Confucian idea of harmony, the following characteristics could be seen consistent and authentic:
- harmony is both ends and means
- harmony means commonality or togetherness. That means, harmony expresses
the equality of both the subjects involved in activity.
- Harmony means neither submission nor unfree following. In harmony, one
feels free and autonomous in decision.
- Harmony is not against progress or development.
In this sense, we wonder how a distorted harmony comes to be. It is distorted, not by its nature, but by the human factor. It is the subject (incorporated in a ruler, or a ruling class) who has interpreted harmony in accordance with his or her own ideology.
By using modern scientific expression, an ideological harmony lacks objective criteria. It is unnatural. It is against the will of the people and the Will of Heaven. Thus in order to understand how harmony transforms into an ideological tool, one needs to examine its logic and the logic of ideology. First, we need to remind the readers of the nature of logic itself. Logic, in its most natural and original form, is a way of living which is universally accepted. Thus, the closer it is to the natural way the more it is the logic of harmony. In this context, one can form a logic in accordance with the nature of harmony. Of course, there would be no precise and final definition of harmony, because such a definition may contradict the nature of harmony itself. However, one could formulate a certain kind of logic from a negative point of view, for example, the logic of harmony is unlike formal logic etc...
In this sense, the logic of harmony should express the living and natural way of harmony, the development and the natural change of nature, the consensual solution in society etc. In a word, the logic of harmony could be a dialogical logic, an open logic or even a dialectical logic. In contrast to the logic of harmony is the logic of ideology, or a logic built on the principle of domination, of which the two sub-principles are those of identity and of unity. Before examining what the logic of ideology is, we need to say a few words about ideology itself. Ideology is seen from two different aspects: as a tool and as the ideal.
As a tool, ideology has some of its effectiveness in politics. It serves primarily as laws, morality and even a king of religion which defend the status quo of a regime. As ideal, it is the symbol of hope, the ultimate concern etc. But whether ideology is true or necessary, is to be discussed. Most philosophers regarded ideology with a suspicious eye. Marx called it a false consciousness. In an article of mine , I have pointed out some characteristics of ideology which I do not need to repeat here. One point which I consider necessary for our discussion is the fact that though ideology is not universal and necessary, temporally and spatially limited, it claims for itself the universality and necessity of science. Understood in this sense, I understand ideological harmony as necessary tool for keeping the status quo, but it is false with regard to the true nature of harmony. Ideology can serve only as a tool but not as the end. Thus, in discussing the logic of ideology, I would like to say that any logic which tends to be a simple tool, and which tends to defend or to be used primarily for defending the status quo, is a logic of ideology. Therefore, in examining the logic of ideology, we discover the two sub-principles of the logic of ideology: principle of identity and principle of unity.
In Negative Dialectics , Adorno vehemently criticised the principle of identity as that of domination used by the ruling class. His critique is partly correct but partly too radical.
He had seen only the aspect of application of the principle of identity but not the nature of identity. In fact, we must acknowledge that the principle of identity serves primarily as the principle of self-consciousness; it is also a principle used in mathematics. It expresses the true nature of a thing. The ambition of Hegel (and earlier of Kant) to transform the principle of identity into a principle of society and politics backfired. He ignored the fact that Kant had admitted his failure in applying pure reason to morality. He ignored also the fact that self-consciousness is not universal consciousness. Thus, when he identified self-consciousness with universal consciousness, the principle of identity becomes a principle of domination: the subject (Napoleon, the ruler) identified himself with the people. Thus, his interests are those of the people Or in a reversed order, the interests of the people are his. In order to defend his interests, he took the principle of identity as his logic to justify his ambition. In the same manner, harmony means also commonality, but this commonality means not that the subject identifies himself with the other subjects such as :"Knowing how to cultivate his personal life, he knows how to govern other men"... Only those who want the interests of the people understood harmony as the art of identification. As stated, the principle of identity goes amok only when it is subjectively applied to praxis. For the sake of a better discussion, I would like to say that the principle of identity serves primarily as the principle of self-consciousness (as Hegel discovered in the first part of Phenomenology of Spirit). It is used also in Mathematics and physics to show the sameness of the same thing or the same number. Beyond these two functions, the principle of identity becomes that of domination. The error comes first from Kant, then from his disciple, Fichte, who absolutized it and used it in the "subjective-natural world". But it is Hegel who after having discovered it as a principle of self-consciousness, extended it into the universal principle of praxis (morality, laws, politics). As we have briefly described the logic of harmony, harmony is by no means identity. To treat harmony as identity, is not only a mistake, but an intentional subjective crime. After You and Schwen, it seems that the rulers had a tendency to transform harmony into a form of identity.
Similarly, we need to take a look at the nature of the principle of unity, a favorite principle used in Chinese philosophy. In a great number of classic texts, the principle of unity is widely used. The term "Ho" for example, is so ambiguous that one often interprets "T'ien jen ho i" as Heaven and Man become one or the unity between Heaven and Man. Such an interpretation includes different meanings: it could mean that Heaven and Man have the same nature; it could also mean that man is the same as Heaven etc. Since we concern ourselves with human praxis, it is the second meaning which prevails. The identification of the ruler with the Will of Heaven, the identification of the King as the Son of Heaven for example, are common practice, although they are far from the metaphysical or ontological meaning of unity. Heideggar interpreted identity as "belonging together". He vehemently protested the Fichtian explication of identity as "to be the same or the sameness". When we examine the logic of harmony, we discover a similar understanding of unity. Unity expresses rather the "belonging togetherness". That means, we possess the same nature, or we share a commonality as title of Chung Yung clearly expresses. The radical interpretation of unity as "become one" in its hidden essence bears the same character of identity. As a matter of fact, the principle of unity is absurd in natural sciences. The ignorant explication of natural phenomena (chemical elements e.g.) of Engels in his Dialectics of Nature in accordance with the principle of unity is to be refuted. The chemical example of H2 O: H2 + O does not show the sameness of the same thing. It is rather water with its two contained elements: hydrogen and oxygen. It is more absurd to use such a principle in praxis. It is incredible to believe that the whole people become one ruler, or the people are one ruler. However, such an incredible thing happened throughout the history of politics. As we have indicated in our critique of the principle of identity, logic's nature is inseparable from the nature of human activity. That means, if the human act changes, then its logic also changes. Our question here is, why nowadays the logic determines the human act and not vice versa as in the earlier Greek philosophers or in the original Confucianism. Actually, logic with its principle of identity and unity has become an ideological tool defending the ruler's interests. The commonality or the consensus of the people is distorted into unity and the identity of the people with the ruler, with all its consequences such as an identity of the interests of the people with that of the ruler. Finally ruler is the State.
The original and rich meaning of harmony is no longer considered by the ruler. What the ruler wants to know from harmony is whether or not he can use it as a tool. His mind is set on how to defend them. Thus in his hands, harmony becomes first a tool, and then an ideology with all of its logical principles, and finally his own "creature". The critique of "small men" or "the men of the mean" of Confucius is a warning against such a tendency. His description of the superior man and the inferior man (i.e. small man) is often stereotypical such as : "The superior man thinks of virtue; the inferior man thinks of possession. The superior man thinks of sanctions; the inferior man thinks of personal favors." Yet, Confucius was aware of the fact that harmony could be manipulated by the inferior man. He tried to describe harmony as clearly as possible. However, despite his effort, his inability to distinguish natural order from established orders (because of the backward science of his time), his ambiguous attitude in applying the principle of harmony to politics has not shed much light on the relationship between human nature (human commonality) and politics. In our view, the discussion of his disciples (namely Mencius and Hsun-Tzu) on human nature reflects that they are unaware of the capricious character, or better, the dialectical character of human nature. It is neither good nor bad by its origin. The human nature is in becoming, i.e. in development. Depending on the milieu (geographical, cultural, and social), the human nature could be differently changed. Such a change is not total, in the sense that still remains the most essential part of human nature, i.e. the commonality which is unchangeable. The purpose of politics is with human life, i.e. with developing man and not with an eternal man. The dangerous understanding of the nature of man lies in the latter: understanding man as an eternal man. In an analogous way, harmony is understood as an eternal principle. As such, man needs only to conform to it. It is wrong, because even harmony is to be changed in accordance with the development of man. Unaware of such a fact, the rulers have beautified the principle of harmony into the absolute, invariable principle determining politics. In fact, such an interpretation could be only in favor to Realpoliticians who have transformed harmony into a tool of domination. The idea that harmony is the best tool in achieving an ideal (orderly, stable peaceful) society, deforms it into a mere tool of domination in the hands of the rulers.
Our critique of the hidden essence of harmony as domination means not that we deny the validity of harmony. Our aim is instead a revaluation of harmony. The these of Chung and Yung (commonality, or common interests). More exactly, harmony is possible only if a democratic (yung) and rational (chung) idea is realized. In a word, harmony is best revealed or manifested in the human political act of consensus.
This part will be briefly presented. It is intended only as a hypothesis and not as a definite conclusion on the nature of harmony. Our hypothesis is: harmony in its most essential nature, is constructed on the commonality or consensus. This commonality is of two senses: the common nature (invariable, objective, in conformity with the natural orders) and the common interests (harmony of interests). The first is visible in nature while the second is seen in the act of consensus. We will concentrate on the later, i.e. on harmony as consensus.
According to Habermas, consensus could be rational only under the following conditions: It is free of any coercive, manipulated factor. It is from the common interests. Its way of solving conflicts must be a consensual, dialogical way. To demonstrate that such a consensus is rational, Habermas had shown also its universality and necessity: consensus is the most natural, and common nature. Its manifestation is language which possesses the same universal and necessary features. It is also the most fundamental form of human sensibility (feeling, aesthetic senses ). Such a description of consensus is of great help in understanding the nature of harmony. As we have stated, there are two different themes in Chung Yung: the interests in harmony and harmony of interest. The act of harmony or consensus is related to the second: harmony of interests.
In Chung Yung, the factor of equality (centrality) is of a determinant factor. The term Chung expresses the middle way, i.e. the way accepted by both sides. When we study the term rights (justus, jus) we discover the same "middle way" meaning. The right man, the good man is the man who stands in the middle. That is to say, the man who respects and actualizes equality. However, if one poses a more serious question on the nature of chung or equality, one may run after a metaphysical explanation. In Chung Yung, one needs not to turn to metaphysics. The nature of equality, or chung is measured in the way one treats Yung (commonality) i.e. how man knows and practices this commonality. By that, we come into the core of our discussion: only by distributing rationally the common equality in distributing the common interests, the act of distribution could be called harmonious or consensual act.
In order to distribute the commonality equally, one needs to understand-What are the common interests or what is the commonality? What kind of equality is: the middle way, or equality built on a mathematical model or on human understanding (i.e. communicative) model?
The texts in chung yung which can explicitly show commonality as common interests are only a few. The following text clearly indicates that the commonality is common interests:
"Consciousness (equality, chung) and altruism (shu) are not far from the Way. What you do not wish other to do to you, do not do to them."
or
"to serve my father as I would expect my son to serve me.... to be the first to treat friends as I would expect them to treat me..."
In this context, commonality is the common interest from the common nature of human beings. The point is now how to attain such a commonaltiy. It requires Chung or equality. As we have noted, we also need to know what kind of equality are we talking about: that of mathematics or that of communicative action.
First, Kant had thought that the mathematical equality would be the right one in treating common interests. It is in fact an ideal one, but impracticable as he acknowledged later in his life. We cannot use number (equal number) in distributing goods without knowing the difference of human needs. Confucius himself rejected this kind of equality. In Chung Yung, he stated:
"The superior man does what is proper to his position and does not want to go beyond this. If he is in a noble station, he does what is proper to a position of wealth and honorable station...
If he is in the midst of barbarian tribes, he does what is proper in the midst of barbarian tribes....
He can find himself in no situation in which he is not at ease with himself."
Thus, there remains the second kind of equality built on human consensus. The form of human consensus. The process of consensus is similar to the process of rationalization of action: an act accepted and understood by all members of the community. In Habermas' description, the process of rationalization of action in a communicative way can be seen from 1) the learning dimension as moral-practical insight 2) the action in terms of moral-practical aspect of responsibility of the acting subject and of justifiability of underlying norms. 30 the norms of rationalization such as truthfulness of intentional expression and justification of rightness of norms. 4) It can affect the normative structures, the forms of social integration. 5) Its rationality is embodied in the mechanism of regulating conflict, world views, identity formation. 6) The expansion of the realm of consensual action, from an overcoming of systematically distorted communication.
It is surprising to note that the term "Ho" expresses in the first hand the communicative, dialogical character. A dialogical learning begins with a learning of moral-practical insight, and then of the responsibility of the acting subjects. In Chung Yung, one often finds similar ideas: "Love of learning is akin to wisdom. To practice with vigor is akin to humanity. To know to be shameful is akin to courage.
That means, equality (harmonious equality) is to be learned from dialogical communication. It becomes equality only when it is justified by 1) truthfulness of dialogical partners 20 justification of rightness of norms 3) effectiveness in regulating conflicts. The commonality or common interests must be equally distributed in accordance with these communicative rules.
Until now, we have viewed harmony as a political principle. However, as we have diagnosed, it lacks effectiveness and rationality. First, it becomes rather a slogan and a tool and then it fails to show the objectivity and the necessity demanded by science . We showed that Confucius was aware of such difficulties. He used nature as a scientific model to construct his political principle. But he was conscious also of the fact that human demands and feelings are different from the nature of Nature. Precisely here arises his problem: he could not have given an explanation of the relationship between nature and lifeworld. The term harmony used by him, therefore, suffers an irredeemable setback: it turns to be used as the principle of identity or, better, the principle of unity: the two sub-principles of the logic of ideology.
In order to rediscover the rational kernel of Confucian harmony, one needs to show that harmony is primarily a rational principle, and then a practical principle.
As a rational principle, it must be objective, i.e. it contains in itself the two scientific characters: universality and necessity. That means, on both epistemological and practical levels, it must satisfy the scientific required criteria and its applicability.
As a practical principle, it must show its effectiveness in redeeming, solving conflicts and in furthering progress.
In fact, Confucius did the same, though he could not have linked the two epistemological and practical levels sufficiently. The main reasons for the ineffectiveness of his politics of harmony were the 1) he relied too much on the authority of Heaven without giving reasons or without demonstrating the nature of Heaven 2) he trusted nature without an investigation of the nature of Nature. Thus, when nature changes, when Heaven remains unknown, then the people will take Heaven and Nature in their hands and replace them. The Will of Heaven is now his will. The objectivity of nature in now his own criterion.
For all these reasons, we propose to understand harmony in light of consensus. The mode of consensus analyzed by Habermas could be resumed in a word: the will of the people is to will of Heaven. That means, it is sufficient to look for the will of the people. But the will of the people is manifested only in a consensual decision. This consensus must be first objective, i.e. unmanipulated, uncoerced, unalienated consensus. Habermas has shown some of the characteristics of consensus such as the truthfulness of participants, the sincerity of members, the clarity of language, the understanding of the discussed object, and especially dialogical, democratic communication. Surprisingly, those characteristics of consensus had been proposed by Confucius himself, though not completely in a dialogical manner: "There is a way to be sincere with oneself: If one does not understand what is good, he will not be sincere with himself. He who is sincere is one who hits upon what is right without effort and apprehends without thinking."
As such, we see little of serious objections in understanding harmony in light of consensus. As consensus, harmony could satisfy the two fundamental demands of sciences and human needs. It could serve as political rationality.
Our conclusion is rather tentative. As stated in our introduction, we wish to find the noesis of harmony. After a long analysis of harmony and its manifestation, after analyzing its distorted logic, we discover that, in order to be the noesis of politics, harmony must be both the goal and the means of politics. That is, it must be the dynamic power transforming society toward the setting goal: a harmonious society. Its method is itself a harmonious method. We discover in consensus this noesis. Consensus is both the end and the means of politics: we wish to reach a democratic, equal and rational society, by using a democratic and rational method which is itself a consensual, dialogical method.
John B. Tran Van Doan, Professor of National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Last Updated May 26,1997 by Steven Proulx
Back
to Vietnamese Missionaries in Taiwan Home Page