The contemporary importance of this topic is clear from a question asked by Benjamin Elman of UCLA in the book's opening chapter: "Are the impressive economic statistics of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and perhaps even the recent economic improvements in [mainland] China and North Korea in some sense related to the shared Confucian values of the East Asian community of nations? From this perspective, Japan may not have been the exceptional case of remarkable modernization in East Asia but simply the first. "
Symposium members addressed a matrix of related questions: What is Confucianism anyway, and why has it faced such extreme turns of fate over the centuries, especially in recent decades? What influences did it actually exert on the evolution of Chinese society and the adjacent areas in Asia? Which aspects of Confucianism can be construed as compatible with or useful to the process of modernization today, and which parts should be modified or jettisoned? And how can one reconcile Confucian theory with the way ordinary people actually behave in Asia?
These questions have more than academic interest. Answers have direct bearing upon just how sophisticated are the current predictions by policy-makers, scholars, journalists, and others about the speed and success of further modernization in Asia, as well as the validity of accepted wisdom about achievements already made. For example, predictions about the prospects for the "four modernizations" in mainland China in many ways gain coherence through an analysis of the impact of traditional Confucianism on modern development. Several papers in fact discuss the recent moves by Peking to rehabilitate Confucius, for social and cultural reasons as well as political ones.
Did (and does) Confucianism help or hinder the process of modernization? The scholars represented in this volume present a thought-provoking range of disparate answers. Tu Wei-ming of Harvard, for example, argues eloquently for both the traditional and current relevance of Confucianism, emphasizing its universal and enduring poetic, social, historical, political, and metaphysical vision in a solid essay on the classical way of Confucian humanism. Elman agrees, saying that once Confucian social and economic values "were freed from the political fetters of the Confucian state and imperial ideology, they have had remarkable resiliency and influence in the twentieth century," adding that it can no longer be assumed "that Confucianism and modernization were in all respects irreconcilable."
Engaging arguments by Leung Yuen-sang and Shee Poon Kim, both of the National University of Singapore, give a distinctly different point of view, illustrating the creative tension that exists among the essays in this book. In a primarily historiographical essay entitled "The Uncertain Phoenix: Confucianism and its Modern Fate," Leung is particularly hard-nosed about the prospects for Confucian theory in the actual "battle against excessive materialism and technologism." It requires "a commitment, a conviction, not simply knowledge" to be a Confucian, he says. "Yet a true believer-practitioner is hard to find." Shee is even more direct in his assessment of the relevance of Confucianism for today's Singaporeans. He says that when "faced with the tough economic realities, [they] are likely to be more self-centered, and will relentlessly pursue wealth and personal interest. Thus Confucianism is likely to be of secondary importance."
Yu-sheng Lin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison generally agrees with this conclusion. He says "the agonizing dilemma in modern China lies in the fact that the same spiritual and intellectual heritage has tenaciously obstructed the rise of a new concept of political modernity with which to understand politics (revolutionary or otherwise)." Beyond his critique of Max Weber's view of China's inability to modernize (a topic rehashed in several other articles as well), he provides an insightful assessment of Confucian tradition with specific reference to the reasons why no "institutional limitation" was placed upon the political power of the emperor, and why so many Chinese were enthusiastic about following "a leader with unbridled power." Both obstructed the process of modernization.
There is substantial middle ground between these two orientations, essays that argue persuasively for saving tradition while adapting it- yet recognizing this in many respects involves contradictions. While Hung-chao Tai of the University of Detroit, for example, argues that Confucian politics has some strengths, including emphasizing "rule by virtue" and promoting "circulation of a political elite through a merit-based recruitment system," the core of his essay lies in his assessment of the "need for adaptation." Here is constructive analysis. Tai says "if modern politics is characterized by the involvement of the masses in politics, Confucianism is perhaps least experienced in this area." The development of political institutions "to convert the passive political role of the masses to a positive one" constitutes a major challenge to so-called Confucian societies.
The challenge of adaptation is met in constructive essays by Peng Wen-shien of Academia Sinica and Vincent Shen of National Chengchi University, both in Taipei. Peng's analysis, "The Impact of the Generalist Ideal Of Confucianism on Contemporary Chinese Administration," indicates some of the strengths of the Confucian system, but in no uncertain terms points out its shortcomings for modernization. The "bureaucratic ills of tradition" include "pervasive nepotism and institutionalized corruption," along with "non-professionalism" and considerable administrative inefficiency due to bureaucratic indolence, an incapacity to perform duties, intrusion upon the realm of others, and competition for recognition.
Considerably more than a listing of ills, Peng argues for concrete changes in the Confucian "administrative culture," including adjusting its organizational design. In all respects, the paper is a refreshing dose of realism, as is Shen's excellent philosophical analysis, which suggests a sophisticated shift in theoretical paradigm that may allow preservation of traditional orientations along with adaptation to modern realities.
The above analyses are placed in context by essays both philosophical and historiographical, which set the interpretative history of the topic at hand and give precision to the terms "Confucian" and "modernization." Both need to be defined. Nathan Sivin's remark, quoted in Elman's paper, that "It is hard to think of any idea responsible for more fuzziness in writing about China than the notion that Confucianism is one thing," has direct relevance. And Elman, like most of the other scholars represented here, distinguishes between Confucianism as a political philosophy, as the orthodox ideology of the imperial state, and as the source of popular values in traditional Chinese society.
The two papers that focus most perceptively on these distinctions are by philosophy professors Chung-ying Cheng of the University of Hawaii and Vincent Shen. Cheng assumes from the outset of his paper that Confucian ethics, specifically centered around filial piety, must be modernized if it is to have any value and meet the needs of modern society. At the heart of this modernization, however, is the tension between tradition and modernity: if tradition is adapted to the present, it undergoes change. Cheng asks how modernization can be expected to originate from Confucian ethics if that tradition is itself "defeated and destroyed by economic modernization."
His answer has persuasive content. He suggests a distinction between "macro-ethics" and "micro-ethics" in Confucianism, arguing that the former has enduring relevance to modernization, while the latter (which is tied to an earlier, rural-based society) may be radically changed. In brief, overall Confucian "macro-ethical" values about the nature and perfectibility of man, and the values of harmony, integrity, and organic interdependence of the universe not only fit well with the modernization of society, but also act as "antidotes" towards some of the ill-effects of development. The continuing relevance of this potentially positive Confucian influence in the contemporary world is a recurrent theme in the assembled papers.
Shen's paper on "Confucianism, Science and Technology" makes an equally useful distinction between the "practical wisdom" found in Confucian ethics and the "theoretical knowledge" key to Western scientific progress. His thoughtful paper delineates a problem of continuing relevance:
"On the practical level, Confucianism would not favor modernity to the detriment of tradition. On the contrary, it would try to adapt to the demand of the modern world in basing it on the dynamism and resources of cultural tradition. All development in the domain of science and technology is to be conceived in a way so as to be absorbed into the cultural dynamism of the Chinese people. In short, it favors acculturation rather than westernization."
Elman's excellent historiographical essay on Western (primarily American) interpretations of the role of Confucianism in China's modernization is supplemented by equally informative papers by John H. Fincher of Australian National University and Kjeld Erik Brodsgaard of the University of Copenhagen.
While Brodsgaard specifically assesses the role of Confucianism in the "post-Mao modernization process in the PRC," Fincher takes on a broader issue. He argues persuasively for placing less importance on the role of Confucianism—positive or negative—in any analysis of modernization. He says that "In twentieth century China, East Asian war is sufficient to account by itself for the most serious problems of modernization. Confucianism need not be adduced as an additional impediment." While still leaving room for a continuing role for Confucian thought, Fincher argues for placing it in a broader context that considers geography, coastal and hinterland variations, and complex marketing systems, which reduces its role in any analysis of modernization.
Fincher's view finds considerable support in the concluding essay by the book's editor, Joseph P.L. Jiang of National Chengchi University. He says that while "cultures and religious tenets are in fact important factors of individual and group behavior," their importance should not be emphasized to the point of determinism. Like Fincher, he argues that historical circumstances (including wars) and infrastructure have far greater impact on modernization than broad cultural orientations, which "are pretty malleable." After all, he says, all the major cultural traditions are essentially anti-developmental (be they Christian, Judaic, Hindu, Buddhist, or otherwise). Jiang calls for a broader analytic approach, one that does not reduce the complexity of modernization by ignoring its structural prerequisites such as "education, political stability, administrative efficiency, and pattern of power and value allocation."
Jiang's closing analysis effectively places the volume's essays in context, and further indicates why Confucianism and Modernization is essential reading for those wishing to make sense of the tensions existing in Asia between the forces of tradition and modernization. [Copies of this volume are available for US$20 by writing to The Freedom Council, 11th Floor, 124 Nanking East Road, Sec. 2, Taipei.] —(Dr. Richard R. Vuylsteke is editor of the Free China Review and director of Area Studies at the Chinese Language and Area Studies School, Taipei.)