Toward a Confucian
Pluralism: Globalization in Dialogue
By Michael Ing 6/1/04 (Rating#)
Review and Commentary (#of Posts)
PDF
REVIEW OR COMMENT ON IT!
The
question that occupies my mind, that keeps me up at night, so-to-speak, is the
question of relating the particular to the universal. To put it into more
practical language, this question asks how an individual unit in any given
system is separate and distinct on the one hand, but at the same time is part
of a larger whole in which it fully identifies. In regards to the topic of
globalization the question becomes one of being both nationalistic and
humanistic at the same time. From a personal perspective the issue is made
concrete as I work out what it means to be an Asian-Hawaiian-American-human
being. Compartmentalization is one option, but is ultimately limited. From a
pragmatic angle, I can divide myself up situationally to being Hawaiian in the
context which calls for being Hawaiian, American in the context that calls for
being American, and an Asian in the context that calls for being Asian. But
even in my moments of American-ness, am I not Asian? And in the moments of
being Asian, am I not Hawaiian? I relate this personal example not to
psychoanalyze myself (the odd thing is that I have rarely been concerned about
who I am), but instead I would like to use it as a minute reflection of the
larger identity crisis we face as a part of the process of globalization.
Globalization as a process of interaction is both a new and an old phenomenon.
Interaction and exchange (loosely defined) between civilizations has happened
since the beginning of mankind. Yet these relations no longer involve simply
one culture with another culture (China with India, or Europe with the Muslim
world, for example). This interaction is now on a ‘global’ scale. It
inevitably involves the entire world. In this light the root process of
globalization is as old as communication itself, but the spatial locality and
also the issues at hand are of a different and more complex sort. While
warfare and even genocide are the old ugly weapons humanity has used, we only
now face the realistic possibility of wiping out the entire human race with a
series of more horrifying and more deadly weapons. In previous ages European
Christians were a sign of the interaction between Europe and the Middle East,
but now it is entirely possible to conceive of an Arab-Christian-American
living in Canada with his Russian-Jewish wife. These issues speak to the
magnitude and the complexity globalization brings.
Globalization in its minimalist form—interaction and awareness on a global
scale—is a reality. In its minimalist form it is both value-neutral and
descriptive. Yet as we move beyond its minimalist form and recognize it as an
on-going account of humanity’s concrete situation, globalization becomes both
charged with positive and/or negative currents; and also prescriptive—as it
implicitly defines the norms for “progress”.
Those that
view globalization as a negative force, often associate with it notions of
homogenization. One of the unique features of globalization is the
predominance of the West. The entire project of Modernity is built off of the
dichotomy of the West versus the rest. Universalizing the modernizing process
of the West has become a dominant ideology. Operating under this mentality the
West has been the trendsetter for the past 250 years, and the rest of the
world has “struggled” to keep at their heels. It has turned into an
international game of ‘king of the modern mountain’, with only one peak, and
therefore only one winner. In this framework globalization ultimately can be
only Westernization or Easternization, or another ‘–ization’ whose shadow
from the mountain of modernity inherently looms large over the rest of the
world.
The truth
of the matter is that any singular centrism denotes a chase for the other 360
points surrounding the center. In this system, the most others can hope to add
is a new perspective on Westernization—to see it in a new light. But never at
any time do they provide anything ontologically “new”. Practically speaking,
with this in mind, in a Euro-centered world, all other nations can do is
appeal themselves to Modernity, and search for congruency from within their
own indigenous tradition to justify Westernization. The end result is
Westernization with a Chinese flavor in China; Westernization with Indian
flavor in India, and so forth. It becomes an all or nothing situation where
those that resist are seen as “backward” for not having “woken up” to the
Truth; while the rest of the world unifies in the true form of Modernity.
Hence the problem is found in the model used for comparison; and the question
becomes, can a new model arise? One that avoids singular-centered
homogenization. Is there such a thing as a multi-centered world? And in an age
where the most powerful nation in the world is hardly bilingual, how realistic
is developing the globalized language necessary for a pluralistic model of
globalization to exist?
Equally
dangerous is the force opposite homogenization—segregation. A world full of
“others” is a lonely and tension ridden place indeed. To use the language
Martin Buber made famous, a world full of “I-it”s (and no “I-thou”s) will
ultimately lead to the clash of civilizations predicted by scholars such as
Samuel Huntington.
If this
brief account of globalization is accurate, the question naturally arises how
to shape the reality we are given, into a positive reality. Assuming that we
agree that globalization is not homogenization or segregation; but at the same
time is not not homogenization nor not not segregation (in other
words, it does not rule out the positive aspects of homogenization or
segregation); it instead is a kind of both/and dynamic process of homogenous
segregation. This may seem to be purely semantics, and to be honest I am not
exactly sure what a “both/and dynamic process of homogenous segregation” is.
Yet I am confident that this place holder bespeaks a “reality” (shi實)
that is waiting to be “named” (ming名)—a
definition that humanity will both shape and be shaped by.
I find
affinity with Confucianism as it is concerned with the question of
universality and particularality. The self in Confucianism is never defined
purely atomistically. The process of “human becoming” (to use a term Roger
Ames often employs), is concretely rooted in the context of one’s primordial
ties. Self realization can only be done in the context of the family, society,
and the world at large. Yet this process of cultivation does not result in the
dissolving of the self into the larger whole. Confucius is clear that the
process of learning to be human is for the sake of the self.
The Great Learning speaks of self cultivation as the root from which
regulating the family, ordering the state, and calming the world, is involved.
Tu Weiming teaches that the deepening process of self realization happens in
conjunction with the broadening process of nourishing one’s relationships in
an ever expanding series of concentric circles.
Tu’s two dimensional model is a visual attempt to relate the particular
individual vertically and the larger universal groups horizontally.
The idiom
in the Analects of harmony opposed to uniformity provides another
useful allusion for the problem of diversity.
This same idea is elaborated in an anecdote in the Zuo Zhuan-
The Marquis of
Qi had returned from a hunt, and was being attended by Master Yan at the
Chuan Pavilion when Ran Qiu came galloping up to them at full speed. The
Marquis remarked, “It is only Ran Qiu who harmonizes (he
和)
with me!” Master Yan replied, “Certainly Ran
Qiu agrees (tong
同)with
you, but how can you say that he harmonizes with you?” The Marquis asked,
“Is there a difference between agreeing and harmonizing (heyutongyihu
和與同異乎)?”
Master Yan answered, “There is a difference. Harmonizing is like cooking
soup. You have water, fire, vinegar, pickle, salt, and plums with which to
cook fish and meat. You heat it by means of firewood, and then the cook
harmonizes the ingredients, balancing the various flavors, strengthening
the taste of whatever is lacking and moderating the taste of whatever is
excessive. Then the gentleman eats it, and it serves to relax his heart….
Now, Ran Qiu is not like this. What his lord declares acceptable, he also
declares acceptable; what his lord declares wrong, he also declares wrong.
This is like trying to season water with more water—who would be willing
to eat it? It is like playing nothing but a single note on you zither—who
would want to listen to it?
There is
value to be found in difference; and the combination of differences culminate
in a larger whole. Carrying the analogy further; all of the ingredients go
through a “cooking” process. In this procedure there are inevitably parts of
the ingredients that change. They go through a transformation in which they
absorb the essence of other ingredients, lose some of their own, and
experience a process of maturation by heat. Thus, while most ingredients
remain identifiable and uniquely themselves, they also lose and gain
attributes in contributing to something entirely new. The extrapolation of
these ideas to the larger globalized picture requires little elaboration,
although the practicalities of exactly how this would play out in everyday
society are not entirely obvious.
One of the
messages of the Zhong Yong, if not the central theme, is the undeniable
link between a common universal source of human nature and its immanent
manifestation in the particular daily affairs of mundane life. The attempts to
translate the title as Centrality and Commonality (by Tu Weiming)
and Focusing the Familiar (by Roger Ames) reflect the interplay in
the text between the individual and the phenomena of the outer world.
The profound person completes himself through the two-fold process of honoring
his moral heaven-conferred nature and investigating the interactions of all
things around. The numinous power of cosmic creativity is found in everything
from a handful of soil to the immensity of mount Hua. In the words of Mencius,
“the sage, [which is the ultimate paragon of virtue,] and I, are of the same
kind 聖人與我同類者.”
This innate potential of the human being, gives him the possibility to
participate in the creative process of heaven and earth. In this world-view
all things are connected and completed with the self, and yet the self is not
diluted into the world-at-large. From one angle, the self is literally being
pulled in a million different directions. And yet this tension between the
self and society is something that can be viewed in a positive dynamic way. It
is only by properly harmonizing these tensions that the transformation and
cultivation of all under heaven takes place. It is in the fruitful ambiguities
of these relationships, and not the sharp distinctions that we often associate
with making things “fit into place”, that value is found.
The
Confucian link between the large and the small, the cosmos and the individual,
is not bridged by a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Instead the assumption is
that the universal is made immanent in every particular, and the human being
is given the responsibility to bring about the completion of this
relationship. This pluralistic approach is also different from other
contemporary attempts by theologians such as John Hick, who have posited
notions of a universal “Real” manifesting itself concretely in the particular
religions of the world. In order for Hicks thesis to work, there must be a
consensus that the Real cannot be known. It must be a part of Kant’s noumenal
world. This disenfranchisement of the Real with human experience, ultimately
sacrifices universal truth claims about the Real for the goal of consensus.
Confucianism asserts that a universal real is to be found and can be
known through the shared experience of human living.
This
indeed is a common Confucian theme. Texts such as Zhang Zai’s Western
Inscription, and Wang Yangming’s Inquiry on the “Great Learning”
also pursue this issue; along with concepts such as tianrenheyi
天人合一,
liyifenshu 理一分殊,
and ti-yong 體用.
Contemporarily, the term “immanent transcendence” has played a large role in
this dialogue. Scholars such as Yu Yingshih assert it as “one of the defining
features of Chinese mentality,”
which “hold[s] the key to one of the doors leading to Chinese spirituality.”
This is not to say that these terms are not problematic. How much Buddhism
influenced the usage of ti-yong and how the Western religious
categories have shaped “immanent-transcendence” are realistic problems.
Furthermore, creating a Confucian epistemology that clearly links the
subjective inner self and the objective universality of heaven has yet to be
worked out.
Yet one
thing is clear—scholars such as Joseph Levinson, who asserted the
museumification of Confucius only forty years ago, may have been wrong. There
are still some creative resources left in the tradition. If globalization is
in fact not simply Westernization, Confucianism may provide some of the
answers not only for what it means to be Chinese in modernity, but what it
means to be one complete system that also functions as part of a larger whole.
Works Cited
Ames, Roger. Focusing the
Familiar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2001.
de Bary, Wm. Theodore and Tu,
Weiming (eds.). Confucianism and Human Rights. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998.
Legge, James. Trans. The Chinese
Classics. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, Vol. 5, 1960.
Tu, Weiming. Centrality and
Commonality. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York
Press, 1989.
Yu, Ying-shih. “Between the Heavenly
and the Human.” In Tu, Weiming and Tucker, Mary Evelyn (eds.). Confucian
Spirituality Volume One. New York: The Crossroad Publishing
Company, 2003.
Duke Zhao, Year 20 (521B.C.E.); James Legge trans., The Chinese
Classics, (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, Vol. 5, 1960),
684.
Review and
Commentary
Leave your own commentary or rate the article!
