The
Ecological Turn in New Confucian Humanism: Implications for China and the
World
by Tu Weiming
2001 (rating #)
Review and Commentary (# of posts)
PDF
COMMENT ON IT!
Citation: "The Ecological Turn in New Confucian
Humanism: Implication for China and the World" in Daedalus (Journal of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 2001).
An intriguing phenomenon
has occurred in Cultural China in the last twenty-five years. Three leading
Confucian thinkers in Taiwan, Mainland China, and Hong Kong independently
concluded that the most significant contribution that the Confucian
tradition, indeed Chinese culture in general, can offer to the global
community is the idea of the “unity of Heaven and Humanity” (tianrenheyi).
Qian Mu in Taiwan characterized his understanding of this precept as the
mutuality between the human heart-and-mind and the Way of Heaven.
(1) Tang Junyi of Hong Kong, emphasized
“immanent transcendence” meaning that since Heaven confers our nature, we
can apprehend the Mandate of Heaven by understanding our heart-and-mind.
Thus, the transcendence of Heaven is immanently present in the communal and
critical self-consciousness of human beings as a whole.
(2) Similarly, Feng Youlan of Beijing
rejected his previous commitment to the Marxist notion of struggle and
underscored the value of harmony not only in the human world but also in the
human-nature relationship. (3) Since
all three of them articulated their final positions towards the end of their
lives, the unity of Heaven and Earth symbolizes the wisdom of the elders in
the Sinic world. I would like to suggest that this ecological turn in
contemporary New Confucianism is profoundly meaningful for China and the
world.
An Ecological Turn
Qian Mu characterized this
new realization a major breakthrough in his thinking. When his wife and
students raised doubts about the newness of this insight because the idea of
the unity between Heaven and Humanity is centuries old, Qian, already in his
nineties, emphatically noted that his understanding was not a reiteration of
conventional wisdom but a personal enlightenment, thoroughly original and
totally novel. (4) Qian, as a cultural
historian, is noted for his sympathetic appraisal of Chinese political
thought and institutions as the unfolding of a rational humanist vision.
Although liberal thinkers have criticized him as an apologist for
traditional authoritarianism, he received much critical acclaim for his
scholarly contribution to the chronology of classical Chinese philosophy,
Chinese intellectual history of the last three centuries and Zhu Xi’s
(1130-1200) thought. However, since he never showed any strong interest in
Confucian metaphysics, his fascination with the idea of mutuality between
the human heart-and-mind and the Way of Heaven and his assertion that this
idea is a unique Chinese contribution to the world, attracted a great deal
of attention in Cultural China. (5)
Tang Junyi, on the other
hand, presented his view from a comparative civilizational perspective. He
contrasted Confucian self-cultivation with Greek, Christian and Buddhist
spiritual exercises and concluded that the Confucianism’s commitment to the
world combined with its profound reverence for Heaven offered a unique
contribution to human flourishing in the modern world. The Confucian
worldview, rooted in earth, body, family, and community, is not “adjustment
to the world,” (6) submission to the
status quo, or passive acceptance of the physical, biological, social and
political constraints of the human condition. Rather, it is dictated by an
ethic of responsibility informed by a transcendent vision. We do not become
“spiritual” by departing from or transcending above our earth, body, family,
and community but by working through them. Indeed, our daily life is not
merely secular but a response to a cosmological decree. Since the Mandate of
Heaven that enjoins us to take part in the great enterprise of cosmic
transformation is immanent in our nature, we are Heaven’s partners. Life has
purpose. In Tang’s graphic description, the ultimate meaning of being human
is enabling the “Heavenly virtue” (tiande) to flow through us. His
project of reconstructing the humanist spirit is, therefore, predicated on
an anthropocosmic vision. (7)
Feng’s radical reversal of
his earlier position is an implicit critique of Mao Zedong’s thought on
struggle and the human capacity to conquer nature. His return to Zhang Zai’s
(1020-1077) philosophy of harmony signaled a departure from his Marxist
phase and a re-presentation of his Confucian ideas prior to the founding of
the People’s Republic of China in 1949. The opening lines in Zhang Zai’s
Western Inscription state:
Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and
even such a small creature as I finds an intimate place in their midst.
Therefore that which fills
the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I
consider as my nature.
All people are my brothers
and sisters, and all things are my companions.
(8)
This idea of “forming one
body with Heaven, Earth and myriad things” is a variation on the theme of
the unity of Heaven and Humanity. Accordingly, Feng characterizes the
highest stage of human self-realization as the embodiment of the “spirit of
Heaven and Earth.” (9)
On the surface, Qian, Tang
and Feng’s ecological turn was an attempt to make the “local knowledge” of
New Confucian humanism universally significant by retrieving the spiritual
resources of classical and Neo-Confucian heritage. Their efforts to employ
Confucian ideas to enunciate their final positions seem no more than
personal choices for their own distinctive styles of philosophizing. Yet,
they were obviously convinced that their cherished tradition had a message
for the emerging global village; they delivered it in the most appropriate
way they knew. Their use of a prophetic voice suggests that their Confucian
message was addressed not only to a Chinese audience but also to the human
community as a whole. They did not wish merely to honor their ancestors but
also to show that they cared for the well being of future generations.
What was the ethos of
Cultural China when they encountered the ecological issue? Were they even
conscious of the ecological implications of their final positions?
Surely, Taiwan, Hong Kong
and, later, Mainland China were all involved in the restless march toward
Western style modernity. Modernization was the most powerful ideology in
Cultural China. The brave new world of industrialization so seriously
challenged China’s traditional agriculture-based economy, family-centered
social structure and paternalist government that the fate of the Confucian
world was thought to have been sealed in the early twentieth century.
(10) Perhaps Qian, Tang and Feng were
nostalgic for a kind of “universal brotherhood” or “unity of all things”
that Max Weber and others have long critiqued as outmoded in our
disenchanted modern world. Traces of romantic sentiment can be seen in their
writings. However, while longing for a lost world, they discovered a new
vitality and a new persuasive power in the tradition. Qian’s fascination
with a seemingly age long idea is understandable. An appreciation of this
renewed sense of intellectual creativity merits a historical reminder.
Holistic Humanism
Prior to the impact of the
modern West, Confucian humanism was the defining characteristic of political
ideology, social ethics and family values in East Asia. Since the East Asian
educated elite were all seasoned in Confucian classics, what the three
contemporary thinkers advocated as a unique Confucian contribution to the
human community was, in fact, the shared spiritual orientation of scholars
and officials as well as the populace of China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan.
Of course, specifying the salient features of this shared spiritual
orientation is not a simple matter. Region, class, gender, and ethnic
differences have led to conflicts of interpretation not unlike those of the
world’s major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam). Suffice it to present the famous “eight steps” in the first chapter
of the Great Learning as a glimpse of what Confucian humanism
purported to be:
The ancients who wished to
illuminate “illuminating virtue” all under Heaven first governed their
states. Wishing to govern their states, they first regulated their families.
Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their personal
lives. Wishing to cultivate their personal lives, they first rectified their
hearts and minds. Wishing to rectify their hearts and minds, they first
authenticated their intentions. Wishing to authenticate their intentions,
they first refined their knowledge. The refinement of knowledge lay in the
study of things. For only when things are studied is knowledge refined; only
when knowledge is refined are intentions authentic; only when intentions are
authentic are hearts and minds rectified; only when hearts and minds are
rectified are personal lives cultivated; only when personal lives are
cultivated are families regulated; only when families are regulated are
states governed; only when states are governed is there peace all under
Heaven. Therefore, from the Son of Heaven to the common people, all, without
exception, must take self-cultivation as the root.
(11)
Speaking directly to this
passage, Wm. Theodore de Bary observed, “Chinese and Confucian culture,
traditionally, was about settled communities living on the land, nourishing
themselves and the land. It is this natural, organic process that Confucian
self-cultivation draws upon for all its analogies and metaphors.”
(12) He further observed that the
“American Confucian/Christian, the farmer poet Wendell Berry’s Unsettling
America “makes the Confucian point”:
(H)ome and family are central, and we cannot hope
to do anything about the environment that does not first establish the
home--not just the self and family—as the home base for our efforts.
If we have to live in a much larger world, because
ecological problems can only be managed on a global scale, the
infrastructure between home locality and state (national or international)
is also vital. But without home, we have nothing for the infrastructure,
much less the superstructure, to rest on. This is the message of Wendell
Berry; and also the lesson of Confucian and Chinese history.
(13)
Underlying this project of
human flourishing, from self-cultivation to universal peace, is a worldview
that entails an overall vision of the proper niche of the human in the
cosmos. The idea of home, in this sense, is expanded beyond the world. The
human, so conceived, is an active participant in the cosmic process with the
responsibility of stewardship for the environment. A statement in the
Doctrine of the Mean succinctly captures the essence of this line of
thinking:
Only those who are the most sincere (authentic,
true and real) can fully realize their own nature. If they can fully
realize their own nature, they can fully realize human nature. If they can
fully realize human nature, they can fully realize the nature of things.
If they can fully realize the nature of things, they can take part in the
transforming and nourishing process of Heaven an Earth. If they can take
part in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth, they
can form a trinity with Heaven and Earth.
(14)
Obviously, this idea of
the interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans was precisely what the three
thinkers had in mind in stressing the centrality of the precept of “the
unity of Heaven and Humanity,” although it had been totally relegated to the
background as a sort of archaic irrelevance for more than a century in
Cultural China. The excitement of rediscovery of this central Confucian
precept was a poignant reminder of how much had already been lost and how
difficult it was to retrieve the elements that remained significant. What
actually happened?
Secularization of Confucian Humanism
Although the fate of
Confucian China since the Opium War of 1839 has been well documented, the
story of the modern transformation of Confucian humanism has yet to be told.
In the period between the Opium War and the founding of the People’s
Republic of China in 1949, Chinese society was inflicted with at least a
major destructive event every decade: the Taiping Rebellion, the unequal
treaties, the Western encroachment, the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, the Boxer
uprising, the 1911 Revolution, the internecine conflicts among the warlords,
Japanese aggression, and the struggle between the Communists and the
Nationalists. Since 1949, until the “reform and open” policy was put into
practice in 1979, Chinese society was subjected to profoundly disruptive
campaigns every five years or so: the Korean War, the Great Leap Forward,
the Collectivization, and the Cultural Revolution, just to mention a few.
The highly politicized and
ideologized master narrative about modern China’s restless landscape is the
story of the decline of the Middle Kingdom, principally due to Western
imperialism, and of the Chinese people’s struggle, against overwhelming
odds, to regain their independence. It is the story of China’s tortuous road
toward modernization. The introduction of Marxism-Leninism, the emergence of
the Chinese Communist Party and the rise of Mao Zedong as the revolutionary
leader are integral parts of the narrative. For Confucian humanism, the
single most critical event was the intellectual effervescence of the 1919
May Fourth Movement. The iconoclastic attack on Confucianism, an aspect of
the May Fourth ethos, was explained in simplistic utilitarian terms: to save
the nation, it is imperative that we transcend our “feudal past” to learn
from the modern West. The sole criterion for judging the value of
Confucianism was its compatibility with modernization defined in Western
values. It was the modernist turn that had definitively restructured
Confucian humanism. Certainly ecological concerns were not on the agenda.
Some scholars have noticed
the paradox in the May Fourth approach to national crisis. The intellectual
totalistic rejection of the Confucian tradition and their thorough
commitment to the well being of China as a civilization-state compelled them
to find a new cultural identity and rejected the main stream of thought that
had, for centuries, defined Chinese polity and society.
(15) Although a group of
sophisticated intellectuals tried to tap the rich resources of non-Confucian
traditions, such as Moism, Legalism, Daoism and folk religions to formulate
new visions of being Chinese, the scholarly community’s general tendency was
to equate modernization with Westernization. As a result, Confucian humanism
lost much of its persuasive power. The courage to transcend the “feudal
past” was considered imperative for China to emerge as an independent
nation. Ironically, nationalism was the motivating force for China’s
intellectual elite to replace Confucian humanism and adopt the Enlightenment
values of the modern West. While wholesale Westernization was no more than a
radical slogan, the Chinese perception of the Western source of wealth and
power became the guiding principle for action.
Science and democracy were
widely accepted as the most effective Western formulas for transforming
China into a modern nation. It was not the search for truth or the dignity
of the individual that prompted Chinese intellectuals to embrace them.
Intent on making China wealthy and strong, scientism and populism were
promoted as instruments of nation building. They were techniques for the
mass mobilization of material and human resources for China to rise again as
a unified nation. The overall ethos was shaped by materialism,
progressivism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism. The Enlightenment
mentality, as a form of secular humanism, was primarily an ideology for
survival.
Under the shadow of the
“feudal past,” the New Confucians of the May Fourth generation stringently
criticized Confucian practices deemed contradictory to the modern spirit.
The Confucian ideology that asserted the authority of the ruler over
minister, father over son, and husband over wife (the so-called “three
bonds”) was demolished. Instead, the five-relationships based on mutual
exhortation--affection between parent and child, rightness between ruler and
minister, orderliness between older and younger siblings, division of labor
between husband and wife, and trust among friends—were critically analyzed
in a new context. While the need for differentiation is obvious, social
ethics predicated on hierarchy, status, gender, and age were severely
scrutinized. Even family values were thoroughly reexamined. The naive belief
that family is always congenial to wholesome self-development was seriously
questioned. Arbitrary authority based on age, gender and status was
rejected. Any assertion, including statements in the classics, which evoked
sentiments of authoritarianism, male chauvinism or hierarchical mechanisms
of control, was denounced. The viciousness with which Chinese intellectuals,
including the New Confucians, deconstructed the Confucian heritage is
unprecedented in Chinese history.
However, even at the
height of the May Fourth generation’s obsession with modernization as
Westernization, some of the most original-minded New Confucians had already
begun to question the worldview and ethics implicit in the Enlightenment
project. Their views were profoundly meaningful for the Confucian ecological
turn. Xiong Shili (1883-1968) reconfigured Confucian metaphysics through a
critical analysis of the basic motifs of the Consciousness-Only School in
Buddhism. He insisted that the Confucian idea of the “great transformation”
is predicated on the participation of the human in the cosmic process,
rather than the imposition of human will on nature. He further observed that
as a continuously evolving species, human beings are not created apart from
nature but emerge as an integral part of the primordial forces of production
and reproduction. The vitality that engenders human creativity is the same
energy that gives rise to mountains, rivers, and the great earth.
Consanguinity exists between us and Heaven, Earth and the myriad things.
Since his philosophy is based on the Book of Change, the ethics of
forming one body with nature looms large in his moral idealism.
(16)
Liang Shuming (1893-1988)
characterized the Confucian life-orientation as balance between detachment
from and aggression toward nature. Although he conceded China had to learn
from the West to enhance its fitness for competition for the sake of
national survival, he prophesized that, in the long run, the Indian spirit
of renunciation would prevail. (17)
Liang may have anticipated Toynbee’s ethical recommendation toward the end
of his life:
According to Toynbee, the twentieth century’s
intoxication with technology has led to the poisoning of our environment
and has created the possibility that humanity may destroyed itself. He
believes that any solution to the current crisis depends on self-control.
Mastery of the self, however, cannot be achieved through either extreme
self-indulgence or extreme asceticism. The people of the twentieth-first
century must learn to walk the middle path, the way of moderation.
(18)
While Liang did not
develop a philosophy of his own, his comparative civilizational inquiry
generated a strong current in reevaluating and revitalizing Confucianism at
the moment when Westernization dominated the intellectual scene.
Nevertheless, the
modernist trajectory was so powerful that Confucian humanism was profoundly
reconfigured. Neither Xiong nor Liang was able to sustain an argument in
favor of a non-anthropocentric, not to mention eco-friendly, ethic. The
rules of the game determining the relevance of Confucianism to China’s
modern transformation were changed so remarkably that attempts to present a
Confucian idea for its own sake were largely ignored outside a small coterie
of ivory tower academicians. Under the ethos of saving the nation, the
repertoire of modern Western ideas was relatively narrow. Even values of
liberty and human rights became problematical because their contribution to
nation building, according to a restricted rational calculation, was
considered neither direct nor urgent. The triumph of science and democracy
was the result of a utilitarian consideration rather than a true commitment
to Western values.
In a deeper sense, had
China’s modernist project followed the democratic ideal of building a
society that is ”just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful,”
(19) it could have a salutary effect
on China’s overall conception of development. Issues of “eradicating poverty
as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative,”
(20) promoting human flourishing as
well as material progress, “upholding the right of all, without
discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human
dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being,”
(21) “affirming gender equality and
equity as prerequisites to sustainable development,”
(22) and “ensuring universal access
to education, health care, and economic opportunity”
(23) would have been put on the
national agenda for discussion. Confucian sense of economic equality, social
conscience, and political responsibility could have been relevant to and
significant for debate and conversation on these vitally important matters.
The cost of the secularization of Confucian humanism was high. As China
turned its back on her indigenous resources for self-realization, it
embarked on a course of action detrimental to her soul and her long-term
self-interest.
Confucian Revival as a Modernist Ideology
The revival of
Confucianism since the end of the Second World War, first in industrial East
Asian and, more recently, in socialist East Asia seems to suggest, on the
surface, that the tradition has been successfully modernized. Actually, some
of the most brilliant Confucian thinkers were instrumental in transforming
the tradition from an agrarian mode of thinking to an ethics congenial to an
industrial, cosmopolitan society. When China was going through major turmoil
in the last five decades, the neighboring countries were not adversely
affected. Moreover, industrial East Asia (Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons)
achieved spectacular economic growth. For years, Confucianism enjoyed state
sponsorship in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. If Confucianism has
survived as political ideology in industrial East Asia, it seems to have
transcended its “feudal past” and become a viable tradition shaping East
Asian modernity. (24)
Mainland China, under the
influence of Maoism, was openly hostile to Confucian theory and practice.
Yet, Confucian ideals manifested as the habits of the heart have been
pervasive in all walks of life, especially among the workers, farmers and
soldiers, in the People’s Republic. Recently socialist East Asia (China,
Vietnam and North Korea), challenged by industrial East Asia, has taken a
more positive attitude toward its Confucian roots. North Korea has
thoroughly politicized Confucian ideas for its cult of personality and
family values. Vietnam has begun to retrieve its Confucian cultural
resources. The Beijing government is now actively promoting Confucian
ethics. Unfortunately, the Confucian Way that has been revitalized is at
best a mixed blessing.
The Confucian ethics that
has emerged in socialist East Asia, under the influence of the modernist
ethos, is often a confirmation, rather than a critique, of the Enlightenment
mentality. Because it takes instrumental rationality as its modus operandi,
its precepts can be easily co-opted by social engineering as a mechanism of
control. Scientism is the basic life-orientation and religion is equated
with backwardness. This rationalist and scientistic ethos is thoroughly
anthropocentric. Successful nation building requires the accumulation of
economic capital, enhancement of technical competence, upgrading of
cognitive intelligence, and improvement of material conditions. On the other
hand, little attention is paid to the long-term significance of “social
capital,” cultural competence, ethical intelligence, and spiritual values.
The strong preference for technological solutions to well-defined problems
and the pervasive influence of the technocratic mindset means that
non-quantifiable issues are often totally ignored or inadequately managed.
As a result, ecology and religion are seriously misunderstood. The gigantic
hydraulic project of the Three Gorges is an obvious example. The promotion
of Confucianism as secular humanism is unfortunate because its rich
resources for developing a truly ecumenical worldview and global ethics will
not be tapped. Instead, a narrowly defined notion of progress, rather than
the broad agenda for human flourishing, will be underscored.
Confucian humanism is not
secular humanism; as an anthropocosmic vision, it emphatically rejects
anthropocentrism as an impoverished idea of humanity. However, Confucians
insist that we begin our journey of self-realization with the
acknowledgement that we are concrete living human beings embedded in the
world here and now. While this positive attitude towards the world enables
us to appreciate our natural and social environment as an inseparable
dimension of our humanity, it also predisposes us to accept the status quo
as intrinsically reasonable. The danger of abusing the reconstructed
Confucian values as a neo-authoritarian justification for domination is a
case in point.
Asian (Confucian) values
have been enthusiastically promoted as positive factors in economic growth,
political stability and social cohesiveness. Self-discipline,
duty-consciousness, diligence, frugality, networking, cooperation,
consensus-formation, and harmony are identified as salient features of
Confucian economic and political culture. At this critical juncture of
Chinese history these values might be considered more relevant for nation
building than exclusive concerns for liberty, rights and individual
autonomy. The Asian values discussion, as a critique of the human rights
rhetoric, is itself a reflection of the Enlightenment mentality:
anthropocentrism, social engineering, progressivism, scientism, and
instrumental rationality. As long as the reconstructed Confucian humanism is
incorporated into the discourse on modernity, its anthropocosmic insight is
lost and its possibility for promoting “a holistic, non-anthropocentric,
egalitarian, eco-friendly worldview respectful of nature and compassionate
to all forms of life” (25) is also
diminished.
Humanity as Sensitivity, Sympathy and Empathy
What Qian Mu, Tang Junyi
and Feng Youlan offered is a new horizon, a re-presentation of Confucian
humanism. Whether or not they conscientiously propounded their thoughts as a
critique of the Enlightenment mentality and, by implication, the discourse
on modernity, their new horizon extended beyond aggressive anthropocentrism
and instrumental rationality. Furthermore, they presented an inclusive
humanist vision by transcending the “either-or” mode of thinking.
The exclusive
dichotomies—spirit/matter, mind/body, sacred/profane, and
subject/object—characteristic of modern consciousness working directly out
of the Enlightenment, are in sharp contrast with the Confucian preference
for the “nuanced between” (26) in
interconnected binary structures. In the Confucian tradition, such
categories as root/branch, surface/depth, former/latter, above/below,
beginning/end, part/whole and inner/outer are employed to indicate
interaction, interchange, interdependence, and mutuality. The earth-human
relationship, viewed in this perspective, is organically intertwined. Earth
is not a material object “out there” but our proper home. The human, for
spiritual self-realization, should become a steward, guardian and protector
of nature in an aesthetic, ethical and religious sense.
How can we “respect Earth
and life in all its diversity,” “care for the community of life with
understanding, compassion, and love,” and “secure Earth’s bounty and beauty
for present and future generations”? (27)
For one thing, we must transcend the view that earth is a profane matter, a
soulless object, and a spiritless body. Rather, there is consanguinity
between earth and us because we have evolved from the same vital energy that
makes stones, plants, and animals integral parts of the comic
transformation. We live with reverence and a sense of awe for the fecundity
and creativity of nature as we open our eyes to what is near at hand:
The heaven now before us is only this bright,
shining mass; but when viewed in it unlimited extent, the sun, moon,
stars, and constellations are suspended in it and all things are covered
by it. The earth before us is but a handful of soil; but in its breadth
and depth, it sustains mountains like Hua and Yüeh without feeling their
weight, contains the rivers and seas without letting them leak away, and
sustains all things. The mountain before us is only a fistful of straw;
but in all the vastness of its size, grass and trees grow upon it, birds
and beasts dwell on it, and stores of precious things (minerals) are
discovered in it. The water before us is but a spoonful of liquid, but in
all its unfathomable depth, the monsters, dragons, fishes, and turtles are
produced in them, and wealth becomes abundant because of it.
(28)
This magnificent display
of fecundity and creativity in nature is readily visible, but, only through
depth of self-knowledge, can we fully appreciate our place in it and our
learned capacity to establish a “spiritual communion” with it.
The recognition that
earth, our home, is alive and dynamically evolving encourages us to protect
“earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty” as “a sacred trust.”
(29) However, our ability to build
global security as basis for a wholesome human-earth relationship has been
significantly undermined by the dominant patterns of development in the
world today. Despite quantifiable economic progress, injustice, inequality,
poverty, and violence remain widespread. China, burdened by a huge
population, is particularly concerned about diminishing natural resources
for future consumption. How can China become a responsible member of the
Earth community without losing sight of her local communities’ basic needs?
China, in her quest for
modernity, is aware of the need to embrace Enlightenment values, such as
liberty, rationality, rule of law, human rights, and dignity of the
individual. However, it is imperative that she mine her indigenous resources
to strengthen salient features of Confucian ethics: distributive justice,
sympathy, civility, responsibility, and human-relatedness. Otherwise, it is
difficult for her to enter the dialogue among civilizations and actively
participate in exploring the possibilities of “a global civil society.”
(30) Fundamental changes in her
behavior, attitude, and belief, conditioned by instrumental rationality and
anthropocentrism, are required before she can make positive contribution to
“a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the
merging world community.” (31) For
China to develop a sound environmental ethic, the nurturing of a culture of
peace and the promotion of social and economic justice are essential.
Strictly speaking, Qian,
Tang and Feng were not ecological thinkers. However, implicit in their
concern for the future of China as a civilization rooted in the spirituality
of the Confucian humanist tradition is a cultural message with ethical and
religious implications profoundly meaningful for the human-earth
relationship. Concretely, they advocated the idea of humanity primarily as
sensitivity, sympathy and empathy. A unique feature of being human is the
ability to commiserate with all modalities of being in the universe through
loving care. Qian believed that this tender-minded approach, a kind of soft
power, delicately maintaining balance and equilibrium in polity and society,
was instrumental for China’s longevity as a civilization.
(32) Tang, in his exploration of the
core values in Chinese philosophy, suggested that the Confucian focus on
humanity that entails a warm heart and a brilliant mind, rather than the
exclusive concern for rationality, may have helped to develop an
all-encompassing humanist vision. (33)
Feng was particularly fascinated by Zhang Zai’s four-sentence articulation
of the Confucian ideal of human responsibility:
To establish the heart for Heaven and Earth
To establish the destiny for all people
To transmit the interrupted learning of the former sages
To bring about peace and harmony for ten thousand generations
(34)
The heart of Heaven and
Earth, the destiny of all people, sagely learning and perpetual universal
peace constitute, in time and space, the full distinctiveness of being
human. In Feng’s words, “the spirit of Heaven and Earth” symbolizes the
highest human aspiration. (35)
Surely, the myth of China
as a culture of peace has been thoroughly deconstructed and the story that
Sinicization implies acculturation and moral persuasion is heatedly
contested in the scholarly community. China as one of the longest continuous
civilization has experienced more dramatic ruptures in thought and
institutions than most other civilizations in recent history. Collective
amnesia, rather than historical consciousness, is prevalent in modern
Chinese intellectual discourse. China may evoke images of longevity,
stability, enduring patterns, and even unchanging permanence, but in
reality, it is a restless landscape, constantly changing, reconfiguring and
restructuring. Nevertheless, as Tang noted, the New Confucian reconstruction
of the humanist spirit, as a response to the contemporary scene, is not an
attempt to mythologize China’s past but an effort to imagine what China can
become in the future. (36) They
believed that humanity as sensitivity, sympathy and empathy is not merely a
Confucian ideal but also a moral imperative for the global community.
Wang Yangming’s
(1472-1529) “Inquiry on the Great Learning” offers an elegantly simple
interpretation of this idea in Neo-Confucian thought:
The great man regards Heaven and Earth and the
myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the
country as one person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and
distinguish between self and others, they are small men. That the great
man can regard Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body is not
because he deliberately wants to do so, but because it is natural to the
humane nature of his mind that he do so.
(37)
By emphasizing the “humane
nature of the mind” as the reason that the great person can embody the
universe in his sensitivity, Wang made the ontological assertion that the
ability to strike a sympathetic resonance with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad
things is a defining characteristic of being human. Even ordinary people are
capable of realizing such a seemingly lofty ideal. Inherent in the human
mind (since the Chinese word xin entails both the cognitive and
affective dimensions, it is often rendered as heart or, better,
heart-and-mind) is this limitless sensitivity that enables us to be
receptive and responsive to all modalities of being in the universe (i.e. a
blade of grass or a distant star). The great person that possesses this
magnificently expansive sense of inter-connectedness does not achieve it
through deliberate action. Moreover, our limited capacity to do so is
primarily the result of our negligence of our endowed nature.
To demonstrate that this
is indeed the case, Wang offered a series of concrete examples:
When we see a child about to fall into the well,
we cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration. This shows that our
humanity (ren) forms one body with the child. It may be objected
that the child belongs to the same species. Again, when we observe the
pitiful cries and frightened appearances of birds and animals about to be
slaughtered, we cannot help feeling an “inability to bear” their
suffering. This shows that our humanity forms one body with birds and
animals. It may be objected that birds and animals are sentient beings as
we are. By when we see plants broken and destroyed, we cannot help a
feeling of pity. This shows that our humanity forms one body with plants.
It may be said that plants are living things as we are. Yet even when we
see tiles and stones shattered and crushed, we cannot help a feeling of
regret. This shows that our humanity forms one body with tiles and stones.
(38)
These examples clearly
indicate that “forming one body” is not a romantic idea about unity, but a
highly differentiated sense of inter-connectedness. However, “forming one
body” as the unlimited sensitivity of our heart-and-mind is rooted in our
Heavenly-endowed nature.
Wang further observed that
a realistic understanding of the human condition must also account for our
inability to make any meaningful connections with anyone or anything:
When (our minds) are aroused by desires and
obscured by selfishness, compelled by greed for gain and fear for harm,
and stirred by anger, we will destroy things, kill members of our own
species, and will do everything. In extreme cases, we will slaughter our
own brothers, and the humanity that forms one body will disappear
completely. (39)
The ecological
implications are obvious. We are capable of either creating a great harmony
in the universe through building meaningful connections with humans and the
cosmos or destroying the most intimate relationships at home because of
desires, selfishness, greed, fear, and anger.
This deceptively simple
notion of moral choice is predicated on a firm belief that human beings, as
co-creators of the cosmic order, are responsible not only for themselves but
also for Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things. The more we are able to move
beyond our self-centeredness, the more we are empowered to realize
ourselves. Yet, we are rooted in the world as our proper home. We do not
create a spiritual sanctuary outside the earth, body, family, and community.
We are embedded in them. Our embeddedness allows us to form one body with
children, birds, animals, plants, tiles, and stones; it is the reason that
we embody others in our sensitivity. Moving beyond selfishness in an
ever-expanding network of relationships enables us to realize the full
potential of our humanity, for our self-realization is personal and communal
rather than egoistically private.
As Heaven’s partners, we
are individually and communally entrusted with a sacred mission. To borrow
Herbert Fingarette’s felicitous phrase, our mission is to recognize “the
secular as sacred.” (40) Indeed, it
is “to transform our earth, body, family, and community into the emanations
of Heaven’s inner virtue (de) which is creative vitality or simply
creativity in itself.” (41) Our
recognition of the sanctity of the earth, the divinity of the body, the
holiness of the family, and the sacredness of the community is the first
step in transforming our sense of the outside world as “a collection of
objects” into a “communion of subjects.”
(42) This holistic vision of the human is predicated on the idea of
mutual responsiveness between Heaven and Humanity; the idea of “unity,” far
from being a static relationship, is the attainment of an ever-renewing
dynamic process.
We in the modern world are
acutely aware that we have seriously polluted our home, substantially
depleted the unrenewable energy available to us, endangered numerous
species, and gravely threatened our own existence. Obviously, we need to
rethink the human-earth relationship. Since virtually all developing nations
consider economic growth and the eradication of poverty the highest
priority, the development strategy directed by a modernist ideology has
shoved environmental concerns to the side. The strong commitment to
development as a positive good clearly outweighs the fear of ecological
degradation. The urgency of the environmental crisis is often relegated to
the background. One of the most depressing scenarios of the human condition
is that with increasing clarity we know what we ought to do so that
environmental degradation will not seriously threaten the viability of our
species and yet, for structural, mental, conceptual, and other reasons we
are moving ever closer to a point of no return. For those who have helped us
scientifically, economically, politically, culturally and religiously to see
the self-destructive trajectory of development, it must be agonizing to
realize that, with all the effort and energy, the crying in the wilderness
has not yet made significant enough an impact to turn the tide.
Understandably, the revival of Confucian humanism is often attributed to its
contribution to the work ethic, a necessary ingredient for development.
Against this background, the advocacy of the precept of the unity between
Humanity and Heaven is a counter-current philosophical position, a cultural
criticism; indeed, a vision of the future, rather than nostalgic attachment
to the past.
Confucian Humanism as an Anthropocosmic Vision
Qian, Tang and Feng saw
the possibility for Confucian humanism to occupy a new niche in comparative
civilizational studies. As a partner in dialogue among civilizations, what
message can Confucians deliver to other faith communities and to the global
village as a whole? To put it simply, can Confucian humanism informed by the
anthropocosmic vision deepen the conversation on religion and ecology?
Specifically, can Confucian self-cultivation philosophy inspire a new
constellation of family values, social ethics and political ideology that
will help Cultural China develop a sense of responsibility for the global
community, both for its own benefit and for the improvement of the state of
the world? Indeed, can Confucian thinkers enrich the spiritual resources and
broaden the Enlightenment project’s scope so that it can embrace religion
and ecology?
The idea of the unity of
Heaven of Humanity implies four inseparable dimensions of the human
condition: self, community, nature and Heaven. The full distinctiveness of
each enhances, rather than impedes, a thorough integration of the four. Self
as a center of relationships establishes its identity by interacting with
community variously understood, from the family to the global village and
beyond. A sustainable harmonious relationship between the human species and
nature is not only an abstract ideal but also a concrete guide for practical
living. Mutual responsiveness between the human heart-and-mind and the Way
of Heaven is the ultimate path for human flourishing. These three salient
features constitute the substance of the New Confucian ecological turn.
(1) Fruitful interaction between self and
community
As Theodore de Bary has
noted, “we cannot hope to do anything about the environment that does not
first establish the home—not just the self and family—as the home base for
our efforts.” (43) Since the
community as home must be extended to the “global village” and beyond, the
self in fruitful interaction with community must transcend not only egoism
and parochialism but also nationalism and anthropocentrism.
In practical ethical
terms, self-cultivation, reminiscent of Tonybee’s idea of self-mastery, is
vital to the workability of this holistic humanist vision. Specifically, it
involves a process of continuous self-transcendence, always keeping sight of
one’s solid ground on earth, body, family and community. Through
self-cultivation, the human heart-and-mind ”expands in concentric circles
that begin with oneself and spread from there to include successively one’s
family, one’s face-to-face community, one’s nation, and finally all
humanity.” (44)
In shifting the center of one’s empathic concern
from oneself to one’s family, one transcends selfishness. The move from
family to community transcends nepotism. The move from community to nation
overcomes parochialism, and the move to all humanity counters chauvinistic
nationalism. (45)
While “(t)he project of
becoming fully human involves transcending, sequentially, egoism, nepotism,
parochialism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinist nationalism,” it cannot stop at
“isolating, self-sufficient humanism.”
(46)
(2) A sustainable harmonious relationship between
the human species and nature
The problem with secular
humanism is its self-imposed limitation. Under its influence, our obsession
with power and mastery over the environment to the exclusion of the
spiritual and the natural realms has made us autistic to ecological
concerns. (47) This de-spirited and
de-natured version of the human has seriously undermined humanity’s
aesthetic, ethical and religious significance. As a result, arrogant and
aggressive anthropocentrism with little concern for religion and ecology has
become the unstated worldview of scientism and materialism. Confucians,
under the influence of the modern discourse, are deeply concerned about
improving material conditions through science and technology and promoting
democracy as the surest way to attain an egalitarian society. Yet, their
preoccupation with nation building, through the art of “managing the world”
(jingshi) has overshadowed the spiritual and naturalist dimensions of
their inclusive humanism.
An ecological focus,
therefore, is a necessary corrective to the modernist discourse that has
reduced the Confucian worldview to a limited and limiting secular humanism.
Confucianism, appropriated by the modernist mindset, has been misused as a
justification for authoritarian polity. Only by fully incorporating the
religious and naturalist dimensions into New Confucianism can the Confucian
world avoid the danger of underscoring social engineering, instrumental
rationality, linear progression, economic development, and technocratic
management at the expense of a holistic anthropocosmic vision.
For the human species’
continued existence, in principle and practice, a fundamental reformulation
of our relationship to nature is critical. Confucianism must free itself
from the modernist mindset of economic development at all costs and
reexamine its relationship to authoritarian polity as a precondition for its
own creative transformation. The facilitation of sustainable and harmonious
human-earth communication is a return to its own home base, rather than a
departure from its source. Indeed, the best way for the Confucians to attain
the new is to reanimate the old so that the digression to secular humanism,
under the influence of the modern West, is not a permanent diversion.
(3) Mutual
responsiveness between the human heart-and-mind and the Way of Heaven
In the appeal of
scientists at the Global Forum Conference in Moscow in 1990, religious and
spiritual leaders were challenged to envision human-earth relationship in a
new light:
As scientists, many of us have had profound
experiences of awe and reverence before the universe. We understand that
what is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and
respect. Our planetary home should be so regarded. Efforts to safeguard
and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the
sacred. (48)
Obviously, the ecological
question compels all religious traditions to reexamine their presuppositions
in regard to the earth. It is not enough that one’s spiritual tradition make
limited adjustments to accommodate the ecological dimension. The need is
none other than the sacralization of nature. This may require a fundamental
restructuring of the basic theology by taking the sanctity of the earth as a
given. Implicit in the scientists’ appeal is the necessity of a new
theological thinking involving nature in the largely God-human relationship.
For the New Confucians,
the critical issue is to underscore the spiritual dimension in the harmony
with nature. Wing-tsit Chan notes in his celebrated Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy:
If one word could characterize the entire history
of Chinese philosophy, that word would be humanism—not the humanism that
denies or slights a Supreme Power, but one that professes the unity of man
and Heaven. In this sense, humanism has dominated Chinese thought from the
dawn of its history. (49)
The “humanism that
professes the unity of man and Heaven” is neither secular nor
anthropocentric. While it fully acknowledges that we are embedded in earth,
body, family, and community, it never denies that we are in tune with the
cosmic order. To infuse our earthly, bodily, familial, and communal
existence with a transcendent significance is not only a lofty Confucian
ideal but also a basic Confucian practice. In traditional China, under the
influence of Confucian ritual and folk belief, the imperial court, the
capital city, the literary temple, ancestral halls, official residences,
schools, and private houses were designed according to the “wind and water”
principles. While these principles, based on geomancy, can be manipulated to
enhance one’s fortune, they align human designs with the environment by
enhancing intimacy with nature.
Confucians believe that
Heaven confers our human nature and the Way of Heaven is accessible to us
through our self-knowledge. They also believe that to appreciate the Mandate
of Heaven we must continuously cultivate ourselves. Nature, as an unending
process of transformation rather than a static presence, is a source of
inspiration for us to understand Heaven’s dynamism. As the first hexagram in
the Book of Change symbolizes, Heaven’s vitality and creativity is
incessant: Heaven always proceeds vigorously. The lesson for the human is
obvious: we emulate the constancy and sustainability of Heaven’s vitality
and creativity by participating in human flourishing through “ceaseless
effort of self-strengthening.” (50)
The sense of “awe and reverence before the universe” is prompted by our
aspiration to respond to the ultimate reality that makes our life purposeful
and meaningful. From either a creationist or an evolutionist perspective, we
are indebted to Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things for our existence.
Mencius succinctly
articulated this human attitude toward Heaven as self-knowledge, service and
steadfastness of purpose:
When a man has given full realization to his
heart, he will understand his own nature. A man who knows his own nature
will know Heaven. By retaining his heart and nurturing his nature he is
serving Heaven. Whether he is going to die young or to live to a ripe old
age makes no difference to his steadfastness of purpose. It is through
awaiting whatever is to befall him with a perfected character that he
stands firm on his proper destiny. (51)
Self-realization, in an
ultimate sense, depends on knowing and serving Heaven. The mutuality of the
human heart-and-mind and the Way of Heaven is mediated through a harmonious
relationship with nature. This sense of mutuality is a far cry from the
imposition of the human will on Heaven and the human desire to conquer
nature.
The Ecological Turn from a Global Perspective
Ironically, at the time
Professor Chan made the extraordinary assertion about humanism, very much in
the spirit of the ecological turn characterized by Qian, Tang and Feng, the
ethos of Cultural China, especially the People’s Republic, was overwhelmed
by secular humanism. On the occasion of the Stockholm Conference on the
Environment in 1972, the Chinese delegation refused to sign the preamble
rejecting limitation on economic growth and the parameters restricting the
advances in science and technology. Their obsession with development and
their faith in human ingenuity made them oblivious to environmental
concerns.
The situation has improved
somewhat, but the ethos of scientism and materialism persists. Since the
“reform and open” policy of 1979, Beijing has transformed itself into a
developmental state, thoroughly embracing the market mechanism as a strategy
of globalization. At first blush, commercialism, mercantilism and
international competitiveness are characteristic of the current Chinese
mentality. China as a growing economic, political and military power is one
of the most important players in the construction of a new world order.
Prior to the “reform and open” policy, China endured many travails in its
long march toward modernization. For decades, however, its externally
inflicted and self-imposed isolation prevented the internal calamities from
having a major impact on the security and stability of the neighboring
countries or the Asia-Pacific region in general. The current situation is
totally different. The Chinese economy and polity are such an integral part
of the larger world that whither China is a local and national issue with
profound regional and global implications. If secular humanism, whether
socialist or Confucian, remains the ruling ideology in China, its adverse
influence on the wholesome growth of Cultural China and the rest of the
world, let alone the environment will be tremendous.
The ecological turn, as an
alternative vision, is particularly significant in this regard. To make it
sustainable and, eventually, consequential in formulating policies, the need
for public-spiritedness among intellectuals is urgent. The emergence of a
public space in Cultural China provides a glimpse of hope. Although
full-fledged civil societies in the Chinese cultural universe are found only
in Taiwan and Hong Kong, the horizontal communication among public
intellectuals in several sectors of society in the People’s Republic has
generated a new dynamism unprecedented in modern Chinese history. If we
define public intellectuals as those who are politically concerned, socially
engaged and culturally sensitive (in the present context, we should add
“religiously musical and ecologically conscientious”), they are readily
visible and audible on the political scene. Indeed, public intellectuals in
academia, government, mass media, business, and social movements have the
great potential for articulating a cultural message inherent in the rise of
China as a civilization-state.
China has been victimized
for more than one hundred and fifty years. As a victim, survivability has
been the primary concern. China is no longer a victim but a rising power.
What kind of psychology will guide the Chinese leadership as she enters into
the global community? If retaliation is not a viable option and sharing
power has only a limited appeal for encouraging China to be a responsible
player, what other motivations are relevant for China’s new identity? Is
China comfortable with the thought that her aspirations may depend on the
persistent misery of the less fortunate areas of the world? Can China help
to change the international rules of the game to make the world more
equitable and humane? Will China decide to help facilitate a new world order
that is, in theory and practice, non-hegemonic? How can China move beyond
the mindset of development defined exclusively in terms of wealth and power?
The first difficult step
is to broaden the frame of reference for China’s quest for modernization. So
far, the obsession with the modern West (North American and Western Europe)
has blinded China to many of her indigenous resources. I have been
advocating, albeit with only limited success, that the Chinese intellectual
community takes India as a reference society and Indic civilization as a
reference culture for her future development. Certainly, China would do well
to avoid negative examples in India’s economic strategies, political
arrangements and social practices; the rise of militant Hindu nationalism
and communal conflicts are obvious cases. Yet, India as the most populous
democracy, with millions of English-speaking intellectuals, bureaucrats,
entrepreneurs and social activists, has a great deal to offer for China’s
self-reflexivity. In the present context, India’s most valuable asset is the
richly textured spiritual landscape. As spiritual matters go, India is a
major exporting civilization. Liang Shuming predicted in 1923 that the
Indian way of life would eventually prevail, even though he strongly urged
China to learn from the West. (52)
China’s iconoclastic attack on tradition is in sharp contrast to India’s
continuous reaffirmation of her spiritual roots. What lessons can Chinese
intellectuals learn from the Indian experience?
If China takes India
seriously as a reference society and culture, she will begin to appreciate
her indigenous Mahayana Buddhist heritage. Anti-religious humanism, vividly
captured by Hu Shi’s reflection on the Indianization of Sinic civilization,
can be substantially transformed. (53)
Already, in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese Diaspora, Humanist Buddhism
is the most powerful religious movement.
(54) Its impact on economic culture, social ethics, political behavior,
moral education, and, above all, environmental ethic has been considerable.
If Mahayana Buddhism reemerges in China as a major spiritual force,
religious Daoism may have a chance to flourish and the Confucian humanism
that professes the unity of Heaven and Humanity, rather than secular
humanism, will prosper.
Since Tibet regards India
as its spiritual source, Chinese political authority and intellectual elite
could better appreciate Tibet as a culture, if India re-enters the Chinese
mind, as a reference. Beijing could deepen its understanding and will not
deal with the Tibet question simply as a political issue threatening
national unity. As a result, the ethnic conflicts, laden with religious
import, between Han Chinese and the nationalities (Uighurs and Mongols as
well as Tibetans) could be handled with more cultural sophistication and
ethical intelligence. An added benefit of this value-orientation is that new
religions will be better assessed and their possible contribution to social
solidarity better recognized. Assuming that religion will be a powerful
force shaping the cultural landscape of the new China, a fundamental change
in the social constructivist approach to nation building is unavoidable. If
the Chinese political authority and intellectual elite become more musical
to spiritual matters, they will develop a more reverential attitude toward
their own indigenous traditions and consequently they will become more
sensitive to ecological concerns.
Still, even if China is
able to broaden her frame of reference to include non-Western experiences in
her modernization strategy, notably the Indian experiment, her participation
as an active contributor and a responsible member of the international
community depends primarily on her interaction with the West, particularly
the United States. With a view toward the cultivation of what U N Secretary
General Kofi Annan has advocated as the culture of peace, the Sino-American
relationship is perhaps the single most important bilateral relationship in
the world today. Unfortunately, the asymmetry between China’s obsession with
the United States and the American inattention to China has made the
relationship extremely complex and difficult. Since the Tiananmen tragedy in
1989, China has often been portrayed in the American mass media as a pariah
state. Issues of human rights, religious freedom, Tibet, Taiwan, and trade
have made China the target of criticism from the radical left to the
Christian right. This unusual alliance in American politics has
significantly tarnished the image of China as a responsible member of the
international community in the eyes of the general public. Yet, the United
States is in a unique position to offer an alternative model for China’s
modernization.
It should be noted that
cooperation between American and Chinese scientists in dealing with the
environment has been cordial and productive. Realistically, however, this
kind of collaboration, under the strict protocol of scientific exchange,
cannot be easily broadened to include critical ideological issues on the
agenda. Yet, it seems obvious that involving China’s active participation in
international projects dealing with environmental degradation, such as
global warming, is critical from a long-term perspective.
(55)
In a broader picture, how
the Chinese leadership deals with domestic affairs such as political
dissent, religious cults, freedom of speech, and the cultural expressions of
the minorities will be taken seriously by the international community
concerned with human rights which, in turn, will have a major effect on
China’s acceptability by the American general public. On the other hand,
from the Chinese perspective, the United States as the only superpower ought
to be more obligated to play an active and constructive role in improving
the state of the world. Given that only 5% of the world’s population
produces 22% of the globe’s greenhouse gasses
(56) and that the average American
living is beyond the widest imagination of the overwhelming majority of the
Chinese people, the question of fairness and distributive justice must be
raised. It is not surprising that China criticizes America’s use of national
interest as its guiding principle in foreign policy and a pretext for acting
contrary to the well being of the international community as a clear sign
that the United States is not willing to assume global moral leadership.
Even so, a wholesome
Sino-American relationship based on a series of fruitful dialogues on
religion and ecology as well as human rights, trade, education, science, and
technology is possible, desirable and necessary. On the Chinese side, social
Darwinian competitiveness will have to be replaced by a much broader vision
of human flourishing. If China widens her frame of reference, which seems
inevitable, she will find her niche in an increasingly interdependent
pluralistic world, rather than in the narrow trajectory of linear
progression. In addition to India, Southeast Asia, Latin America, the
Islamic Middle East, Africa, and many other non-Western societies will
become relevant to her intellectual and spiritual self-definition. For the
United States, the need to transform herself from a teaching civilization
into a learning culture is obvious. As a great immigrant society, the United
States has been a vibrant learning culture oriented towards Europe for
centuries. Since the end of the Second World War, the American self-image as
a tutor of Confucian East Asia has been so much ingrained in the public
consciousness that the teacher-disciple relationship, as in the case of
Dewey and Hu Shi/Feng Youlan, has been accepted as the norm. It is now time
to work at a new equilibrium of mutual learning and appreciation.
The Copenhagen Social
Summit in 1995 identified poverty, unemployment and social disintegration as
three serious threats to the solidarity of the human community.
Globalization enhances localization. Our community compressed into a
“village,” far from being integrated, blatantly exhibits difference,
differentiation and outsight discrimination. For the South to appreciate the
environmental movements of the North, the perceived contradiction between
ecological and developmental imperatives will have to be resolved. The
North’s advocacy of elegant simplicity as an alternative lifestyle is not
persuasive, if the South considers development, in the basic material sense,
a necessary condition for survival. China as a developing society has been
thoroughly seasoned in the Southern mentality. If her sense of
responsibility is not simply confined to nation building, China can become a
constructive partner on global environmental issues. She could be encouraged
to do if the North, especially the United States, demonstrates moral
leadership. Without encouragement and reciprocal respect from developed
countries, it is unlikely that she will independently embark on such a path.
Actually, in a limited scale, mutually beneficial dialogues on religion and
ecology as well as human rights, trade, education, science, and technology
between China and the United States on the one hand and European Union on
the other have already begun.
Given the current
political ethos in China, religion is a particularly delicate matter.
However, religion as a vibrant social force is widely recognized by the
public intellectuals in government, academy, business, and the mass media.
Whether or not religion will play an active role in shaping China’s
development strategy is perhaps the single most important indicator for
assessing China’s new cultural identity. The possibility of a sound
environmental ethic depends heavily on China’s ability to transcend secular
humanist nationalism. In a broader context, for religious and spiritual
leaders to play a significant role on the global scene in articulating a
shared approach to environmental degradation, they must assume the
responsibility of public intellectuals. As the Millennium Conference at the
United Nations in September 2000 clearly showed, unless religious and
spiritual leaders could rise above their faith communities to address global
issues as public intellectuals, their messages will be misread, distorted or
ignored. Notwithstanding the demands for recognition and representation,
identity politics is detrimental to fostering a global ethic for human
survival and flourishing.
Religious and spiritual
leaders should develop, as William Vendley suggests, in addition to their
primary language of faith, a secondary language (which, I think, may very
well be the emerging universal language) to facilitate their engagement in
nurturing a culture of peace in our conflict-ridden pluralistic societies.
(57) The Confucians seem to have
developed a secondary language as the basic cultural competence of an
engaged scholar. In fact, their primary language has been so integrated in
their secondary language that they have difficulty making the distinction
between them. Assuming the role of the public intellectual has become a
defining characteristic of being a Confucian, this may explain why the term
“Confucian” has often been used, in inter-religious dialogues, as an
adjective to describe the political concern, social engagement and cultural
sensitivity of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. Thus a Confucian
Christian, Buddhist or Muslim must aspire to the role of the public
intellectual. A priest whose ultimate concern is the Kingdom yet to come
would not choose to be a Confucian; nor would a monk who is totally devoted
to the journey to the other shore or a Sufi who is primarily involved in the
purification of the soul. However, socially committed Christians and
Muslims, not to mention Humanist Buddhists, can identify themselves as
Confucians also.
Toward a New Worldview and Global Ethic
The New Confucian
ecological turn clearly shows that an inseparable aspect of a sustainable
human-earth relationship is the creation of harmonious societies and
benevolent governments through self-cultivation of all members of the human
community. At the same time, Confucians insist that being attuned with the
changing patterns in nature is essential for harmonizing human
relationships, formulating family ethics and establishing a responsive and
responsible government. As Mary Evelyn Tucker notes:
The whole Confucian triad of heaven, earth, and
humans rests on a seamless yet dynamic intersection between each of these
realms. Without harmony with nature and its myriad changes, human society
and government is threatened. (58)
Since each person’s
self-cultivation is essential for social and political order, the public
intellectual is not an elitist but an active participant in the daily
affairs of the lifeworld. The Confucian idea of a concerned scholar, rather
than the philosopher, prophet, priest, monk, or guru, seems the most
appropriate model. The Confucians remind us that, in order to foster a
wholesome worldview and a healthy ecological ethic, we need to combine our
aspiration for a harmonious relationship with nature with our concerted
effort to build a just society.
Political leadership in
China is in an advantageous position to “promote a culture of tolerance,
nonviolence, and peace.” (59) Chinese
people are well disposed by Mahayana Buddhism and religious Daoism as well
as inclusive Confucian humanism to “treat all living beings with respect and
consideration.” (60) An increasing
number of public intellectuals in the academic community have already
forcefully articulated the wish to “integrate into formal education and
life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a
sustainable way of life.” (61) The
major challenge is democratization at all levels, which must begin with
greater transparency and accountability in governance on top. As the rule of
law, rather than the rule by law, is widely accepted as the legitimate way
to provide access to justice for all, the ideal of “inclusive participation
in decision making” (62) is no longer
unimaginable.
New Confucians fully
acknowledged that in their march toward modernization in the cause of nation
building, their primary language has been so fundamentally reconstructed
that it is no longer a language of faith but a language of instrumental
rationality, economic efficiency, political expediency, and social
engineering. They have now recovering from that modernist malaise. Through
their own creative transformation, their re-presentation of the Confucian
anthropocosmic vision will provide sources of inspiration for a new
worldview and a new ethic. The New Confucian ecological turn has great
significance for China’s spiritual self-definition, for it urges China to
return to its home base and rediscover its own soul. A sustainable future of
the global community will benefit from it.
Commentary
COMMENT ON IT!
(1) Qian Mu’s
last essay, “Zhongguo wenhua dui rennei weilai keyou di kongxian” (the
possible contribution of Chinese culture to the future of humankind), first
appeared as a newspaper article in the United News in Taiwan
(September 26, 1990). It was reprinted, with a lengthy commentary from his
widow, Hu Meiqi, in Zhongguo Wenhua (Chinese Culture), August 1991,
vol. 4, 93-96.
(2) For an
elaborate discussion on this, see Tang Junyi, Shengming cunzai yu xinling
jingjie (Life existence and the spiritual realms; Taipei: Xuesheng Book
Co., 1977), pp. 872-888.
(3) Feng Youlan,
Zhongguo xiandai zhexueshi (History of modern Chinese philosophy;
Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishers, 1999), pp. 251-254.
(4) See Hu
Meiqi’s commentary, note 1.
(5) For
example, Ji Xianlin of Peking University, Li Shengzi of the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences, Cai Shangsi of Fudan University and a number of other
senior scholars all enthusiastically responded to Qian’s article. My short
reflection appeared in Zhonghua Wenhua (Chinese Culture), August
1994, vol. 10, 218-219.
(6) Max Weber,
The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, trans. Hans H. Gerth
( Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1951), p. 235.
(7) Tang Junyi,
Shengming cuizai yu xinling jingjie, pp. 833-930.
(8) Chang Tsai
(Zhang Zai), “The Western Inscription,” in Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A
Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1963), p. 497.
(9) Feng Youlan,
Xin yuanren (New origins of humanity) in Zhenyuan liushu (Six
books of Feng Youlan in the 1930s and 40s; Eastern Chinese Normal University
Press, 1996), vol. II, pp. 626-649.
(10) Joseph
Levenson, Confucian China and its Modern Fate: A Trilogy (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968).
(11) The
“Text” of The Great Learning, see Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source
Book of Chinese Philosophy, p. 86. My translation
(12) Wm.
Theodore de Bary, “Think Globally, Act Locally,” and the Contested Ground
Between,” in Confucianism and Ecology, edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker
and John Berthrong (Harvard University: Center for the Study of World
Religions, 1998), p. 32.
(13) Ibid.,
pp. 32-33.
(14)
Zhongyong (Doctrine of the mean), XXII. See Tu Wei-ming, Centrality
and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1989), p. 77. This translation is slightly
different.
(15) See Lin
Yu-sheng, The Crisis of Chinese Consciousness: Radical Antitraditioanlism
in the May Fourth Era (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979) and
Vera Schwarcz, The Chinese Enlightenemtn: Intellectuals and the Legacy of
the May Fourth Movement of 1919).
(16) Xiong
Shili, Xin Weishilun (New theory on consciousness-only; reprint,
Taipei: Guangwen publishers, 1962), vol. I, chap. 4, pp. 49-92.
(17) Liang
Shuming, Dongxi wenhua jiqi zhexue (Eastern and Western cultures and
their philosophies; reprint, Taipei: Wenxue Publishers, 1979), pp. 200-201.
(18) Daisaku
Ikeda, A New Humanism (New York: Weatherhill, 1996), p. 120.
(19) The
Earth Charter, www. earthcharter.org
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Ibid.
(24) See Tu
Wei-ming, ed., Confucian Tradtions in East Asian Modernity: Moral
Education and Economic Culture in Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).
(25) Donald
K. Swearer, “Principles and Poetry, Places and Stories: The Resources of
Buddhist Ecology,” p. 2.
(26) I am
indebted to Benjamin Schwartz for this idea.
(27) Earth
Charter
(28)
Doctrine of the Mean, XXV:9. Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy, p. 109.
(29) The
Earth Charter
(30) Ibid.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Qian Mu,
Cong Zhongguo lishi laikan Zhongguo minzuxing ji Zhongguo wenhua
(Chinese national character and Chinese culture from the perspective of
chinese history; Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1979).
(33) Tang
Junyi, “Chinese Culture and the World,” in Zhonghua wenhua yu dangjin
shijie (Chinese culture and the world today; Taipei: Xuesheng
Publishers, 1975), pp. 865-929.
(34) Feng
Youlan, Zhongguo xiandai zhexueshi, pp. 245-249.
(35) Ibid.
(36) Tang
Junyi, Renwen jingsheng zhi zongjian (the reconstruction of the humanist
spirit
(37) Wang
Yangming (Wang Yang-ming), “Inquiry on the Great Learning, “ Wing-tsit Chan,
trans., A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy, p. 659.
(38) Ibid.,
pp. 659-660. Since Wang Yangming wished to demonstrate that the mind of the
small man can form one body with all things as well, he used “he” rather
than “we” in the text.
(39) Ibid.,
660.
(40) Herbert
Fingarette, Confucius—the Secular as Sacred (New York: Harper and
Row, 1972).
(41) Tu
Weiming, “Crisis and Creativity: A confuciajn Response to the Second Axial
Age,” in Steven L. chase, ed., Doors of Understanding: Conversations on
Global Spirituality in Honor of Ewert Cousins (Quincy, Ill: Franciscan
Press, 1997), p. 414.
(42) Thomas
Berry
(43) Wm.
Theodore de Bary, note
(44) Huston
Smith, The World’s Religions (HarperSan Francisco, 1991), p. 182.
(45) Ibid.
(46) Ibid.,
pp. 186-187.
(47) Thomas
Berry
(48) Quoted
in Mary Evelyn Tucker, “The Emerging Alliance of Religion and Ecology,” in
Steven L. Chase, Doors of Understanding, p. 111.
(49) Wing-tsit
Chan, trans., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, p. 3.
(50) The
Book of Change
(51)
Mencius, VIIA:1. See D. C. Lau, trans., Mencius (Penguin
Classics, 1970), p. 182. My translation of the first line is different.
(52) Liang
Shuming, Dongxi wenhua jiqi zhehue, pp.199-201
(53) Hu Shi,
The Indianization of China
(54) Stuart
Chandler
(55) Michael
B. McElroy notes that the future of controlling global emissions of carbon
dioxide “will depend in large measure of what happens in large developing
countries such as China, India and Indonesia, see “Perspectives on
Environmental Change: Basis for Action,” p. 16.
(56) Ibid.
(57) William
Vendlley
(58) Mary
Evelyn Tucker, “The Emerging Alliance of Religion and Ecology,” in Steven L.
Chase, Doors of Understanding, p. 120.
(59) Earth
Charter
(60) Ibid.
(61) Ibid.
(62) Ibid.
