Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century

by Ying-shih Yü

  Confucianism was only interested in aff airs of this world. Moreover, “the Con-

  fucian wished neither for salvation from life which was affi

  rmed, nor salvation

  from the social world, which was accepted as given.”3 In other words, Confu-

  cianism was an exclusively this- worldly teaching and had little or no serious

  concern for the world beyond either in the religious or metaphysical sense.

  Thus, its rationalism meant only rational adjustment to the world, as contrasted

  to Puritan rationalism, which meant rational mastery of the world on God’s

  command.

  Having thus reviewed Weber’s famous thesis and his negative view of the

  Confucian ethic with regard to the “cap i tal ist spirit,” how are we going to re-

  late Confucian ethics and capitalism in a meaningful new way today when we are

  on the very threshold of the twenty- fi rst century? First of all, I wish to emphasize

  that even if Weber’s thesis is valid and his characterization of Confucianism is

  tenable, the thesis itself is largely of historical signifi cance and no longer directly

  relevant to the question of religious belief versus economic development in the

  con temporary world. What ever its historical explanation may be, the fact has

  been established beyond dispute that modern capitalism was a unique creation

  of Western civilization and as a system of economic production and organ-

  ization, it has spread to every corner of the world since the nineteenth century.

  We need not be concerned any more with its historical origins.

  Weber’s thesis as a historical explanation of the genesis of capitalism in the

  West has been vigorously as well as rigorously reexamined by historians and

  210 c on f uc i a n e t h ic s a nd c a p i ta l is m

  sociologists in recent de cades, especially since the 1980s. As a result, impor tant

  modifi cations of the original thesis have been made. Weber’s critics now seri-

  ously question his interpretation of certain key theological ideas in Puritanism,

  such as “calling” and “predestination.” According to them (such as Malcolm H.

  MacKinnon), Puritanism did not give religious sanction to secular callings

  because by “works,” Puritan pastors still meant otherworldly labor such as “medi-

  tation” or “introspection.” Richard Baxter, whom Weber quoted so much in The

  Protestant Ethic to support his thesis, for example, never urged the pursuit of pri-

  vate profi t as a way of earning favor from God. The emphasis of the Puritan doc-

  trine of the “calling” was also placed squarely on the “spiritual” side, not earthly

  or temporal obligations, which are at best indiff erent to salvation and at worst

  sinful. The immersion of self in earthly success is viewed as sinning against

  God because it inevitably leads to exclusion of dedicated worship. Even defend-

  ers of the Weber thesis (such as Gordon Marshall) also concede that the line

  between the Reformation and pre- Reformation with regard to the real beginning

  of economic rationality, the very quintessence of “the spirit of capitalism,” may

  have been overdrawn. The activities of the medieval businessmen, judged by

  standards of their own times, are just as rational as those of the ascetic Protestant

  of the Reformation era.4

  Needless to say, Weber’s understanding of Confucianism was severely lim-

  ited by the level of Eu ro pean sinology of his own day, which made no distinc-

  tion between classical Confucianism and Neo- Confucianism in late imperial

  China. His characterization of Confucianism in terms of world accommodation

  may fi nd empirical support in be hav ior patterns of many practically oriented

  Chinese, but as a theoretical interpretation, it is clearly wide of the mark. As the

  sociologist C. K. Yang pointed out in 1963, in classical Confucianism the tran-

  scendental world was often disguised under the name of the Dao, or the “golden

  past.” The Confucian scholar as the guardian of Dao never accepted this world

  “as given.” On the contrary, more often than not, he found the sociopo liti cal

  order in this world at ethical variance with the ideal world of Dao and, more-

  over, it was his sacred duty to transform the given world in conformity to the

  Dao. This is essentially a sum-up of the views developed by Confucians them-

  selves over the centuries. If we accept this interpretation, then Weber’s state-

  ments such as Confucianism “was (in intent) a rational ethic which reduced

  tension with the world to an absolute minimum” or “completely absent was any

  tension between ethical demand and human shortcoming, religious duty and

  sociopo liti cal real ity”5 would require radical revision, to say the least. I think C. K.

  Yang is on a much fi rmer ground when he said, “Confucian rationalism and

  asceticism stemmed from this tension between the Dao and worldly realities,

  especially during historical crisis when mass suff ering reigned.” 6

  This tension was greatly heightened in Neo- Confucianism of the Song and

  Ming periods when, again, contrary to Weber’s assertion, a metaphysical dimen-

  c on f uc i a n e t h ic s a nd c a p i ta l is m 211

  sion was fully developed in response to the Buddhist domination of the Chinese

  spiritual world. In this regard, I agree completely with Thomas A. Metzger’s

  observation that the Neo- Confucian idea of “heavenly princi ple” and its elusive-

  ness expresses some of the very “tension” Weber was looking for.7

  In view of the above criticisms of Weber’s famous thesis and his treatment

  of the Confucian ethic in comparative perspective, I cannot help feeling that we

  have reached a dead end in seeking a defi nite answer to the question why China

  did not develop capitalism. Further speculation is not likely to produce results

  proportionate to the eff ort. Instead, I propose to ask a diff er ent question, namely,

  why have Chinese businessmen (and businesswomen) in Taiwan, Hong Kong,

  and the Chinese mainland been so successful in embracing and developing

  Western capitalism in recent de cades? It is in connection with this new ques-

  tion that I shall discuss the possibility of Confucianism as a contributory factor.

  In a sense, this question has already been anticipated by Weber himself. Toward

  the end of The Religion of China, Weber said:

  The Chinese in all probability would be quite capable, prob ably more ca-

  pable than the Japa nese, of assimilating capitalism which has technically

  and eco nom ically been fully developed in the modern culture area. It is

  obviously not a question of deeming the Chinese “naturally ungifted” for

  the demands of capitalism. But compared to the Occident, the varied con-

  ditions which externally favored the origin of capitalism in China did not

  suffi

  ce to create it.8

  Now, as I shall stay away from the question of “origin,” I would choose to focus

  on the question of why the Chinese are capable of assimilating capitalism. As

  a matter of fact, this is precisely why the Weber thesis has attracted so much

  scholarly attention in the fi rst place. “Sociologists of religion,” as Hartmut

  Lehman observes in his preface to Weber’ s Protestant Ethic, “used Weber’s the-

  sis on the relationship of as
cetic Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism in

  order to gain arguments for constructing universally applicable laws of develop-

  ment that, in turn, could be used to strengthen the work ethic, and thus capital-

  ism, in developing countries.”9 However, as a historian of early China, it is not

  my business to construct any “laws.” In what follows, I shall outline the evolu-

  tions of business culture and its relation to Confucian ethics in Chinese history

  in the hope that it may shed some light on the con temporary development of

  capitalism in East Asian socie ties as a whole.

  Fernand Braudel insisted that capitalism must be separated from market

  economy and therefore rejected what he called the a priori argument— “no capi-

  talism, no market economy.”10 With the two thus separated, he then went on to

  suggest that nondevelopment of capitalism in no way prevented China from

  having had “a solidly established market economy” in the Ming- Qing times.

  212 c on f uc i a n e t h ic s a nd c a p i ta l is m

  Now, following Braudel’s useful distinction, I would relate Confucian ethics,

  not to capitalism, which I take to be a unique creation of the West, but to mar-

  ket economy, which seems common to all socie ties.

  To begin with, it may be noted that the so- called Confucian ethics, which

  has gradually evolved in China since the eleventh century, cannot be consid-

  ered as purely “Confucian” because of the active interactions between Confu-

  cianism on the one hand and Buddhism and Daoism on the other. Talk of

  Sanjiao heyi

  (Three Teachings in One) was increasingly common from

  the twelfth century to Wang Yangming

  (1472–1529). Historically, it was

  Chan (Zen) Buddhism that initiated what Weber called “this- worldly asceticism”

  in the Chinese spiritual world. According to original Buddhist texts of discipline

  ( vinaya), the clergy were not allowed to engage in agricultural work for fear of kill-

  ing living beings (e.g., insects, plants, and trees). In the late eighth or early ninth

  century, however, the Chan Master Baizhang Huaihai

  (720–814) intro-

  duced a new princi ple in his revised text of monastic rules that required all of the

  monks to work equally in order to earn their own living. One disciple asked the

  Master: “Is it sinful to cut grasses, chop trees, dig the fi eld, and turn over the

  soil?” The Master answered: “It depends on how the person does it. If he does it

  with a worldly sense of gain and loss, then surely he has committed a sin. How-

  ever, if he does it with a transcendent state of mind, then he has committed no

  sin at all.”11

  This answer immediately reminds us of the Calvinist attitude of combining

  practical sense and cool utilitarianism with an otherworldly aim. It was also

  this same Chan Master who has been credited with the invention of the famous

  motto, “A day without work, a day without meals,” which not only was followed

  by Buddhist monks but also became proverbial in the lay society.12 Again, we

  cannot help think of the saying of St. Paul, “If a man will not work, neither

  shall he eat,” as emphatically quoted with approval by Calvin.

  Chan Buddhist asceticism may have been originally of an otherworldly na-

  ture, but it soon took a this- worldly turn and thereby converged with as well as

  strengthened Confucian asceticism. Industry, frugality, cherishing time—

  these are all virtues promoted by Confucian sages since classical antiquity.

  Nevertheless, they received new emphasis in Neo- Confucianism due largely to

  the example of Chan Buddhist asceticism. Both Zhang Zai

  (1020–1077)

  and Zhu Xi

  (1130–1200) not only urged their students to be industrious in

  learning but also advised them to divide the day into three sections for “accu-

  mulation of eff ort,” clearly following the example of the Chan practice of

  “thrice- daily sûtra- reading.” Zhu Xi even explic itly quoted a Buddhist saying,

  “Apart from dressing and eating, do not get your mind involved with other

  things during the entire day.”13 Another Confucian (Su Song

  , 1020–1102)

  exhorted people of all occupations, not just scholars, to practice this virtue: “Life

  lies in being industrious: with industry, one will lack nothing.”14 And with “in-

  dustry” came the consciousness of cherishable time. One poet wrote:

  c on f uc i a n e t h ic s a nd c a p i ta l is m 213

  Daylight is like a galloping steed.

  Youth is not staying forever. . . .

  If you truly think of this,

  Then what leisure is there for meals during the day,

  What leisure for sleep during the night?15

  The Chan Buddhist motto “a day without work, a day without meals” also

  found its sympathetic echoes in the Neo- Confucian’s mind. Fan Zhongyan

  (989–1052) once remarked: “When I lie down at night, I reckon the cost

  of my consumption for the day, as well as the work I have done. If my expendi-

  ture and work stand in balance, I can fall into sound sleep; if not, then all

  through the night I cannot rest in peace, determined to make good the balance

  the next day.”16 Zhu Xi even considered it a violation of the Heavenly Princi ple

  for anyone living in this world not to do any useful work after taking his meals.

  The work ethic thus developed in the Confucian elite was also accepted by other

  social classes, including the merchants. A late Qing Manual for Apprentices in

  Trade begins with the sentence: “Whoever leaves his home to learn a trade, no

  matter what role he plays, should always be diligent and careful.” The rest is a

  detailed description of the work schedule for the apprentice, including getting

  up on time and using leisure time for moral and intellectual improvement.

  Thus, he is advised to “set up his mind upright, and not be selfi sh or greedy,” or

  “practice the abacus and calligraphy.”17

  There is ample evidence that Confucian ethics spread from the educated

  elite to the merchant class between 1600 and 1800 when the market economy

  was growing quickly in many parts of China. Beginning with the sixteenth

  century, a quiet but active social movement known as “abandoning Confucian

  studies for commercial pursuits” swept China. Because of the ever- increasing

  competitiveness of the examination system on the one hand and the prosperity

  of the market economy on the other, numerous Confucian scholars gave up

  their hopes on bureaucratic careers and turned to become merchants. There

  was a widely current belief at the time that “while one out of ten scholars will

  attain success in examinations, nine out of ten will in business.” This is not

  unlike the “commercial wave” in today’s China, which has thrown numerous

  “intellectuals” into the “ocean of business.”

  In his introduction to a series of studies under the general title “The Eco-

  nomic Ethic of the World Religions,” Weber said: “Confucianism was the status

  ethic of prebendaries, of men with literary educations who were characterized

  by a secular rationalism. If one did not belong to this cultured stratum, he did

  not count. The religious (or if one wishes, irreligious) status
ethic of this stra-

  tum has determined the Chinese way of life far beyond the stratum itself.”18

  Obviously, here he identifi ed Confucianism as the exclusive ethic of what we

  call scholar- offi

  cials even though he was very much aware of the profound and

  pervasive infl uence of Confucianism in Chinese society. It is also misleading to

  214 c on f uc i a n e t h ic s a nd c a p i ta l is m

  characterize Confucianism as “secular” or “irreligious.” In any case, the Western

  category of “religious versus secular” does not readily apply to Confucianism.

  What Weber was unaware of at the time of writing this paragraph is that

  from the sixteenth century on, large numbers of educated Chinese, well trained

  in Confucian learning including classics and histories, turned away from the

  bureaucratic toward the business world. As a result, Confucianism was no lon-

  ger the mono poly of the literati; the merchants now felt that they were entitled

  to an equal share of the Confucian Dao. In 1523, Li Mengyang

  (1473–1529),

  a leading Confucian writer, composed an epitaph for a Shanxi merchant named

  Wang Xian

  (1469–1523) in which the merchant is quoted as having made

  the following statement: “Merchants and scholars pursue diff er ent occupations

  but share the same mind.”19 I consider this statement extremely signifi cant

  because never before had the Chinese merchant been so assertive as to suggest

  that he was a social equal of the scholar.

  As we all know, according to the traditional conception of social hierarchy, the

  merchant was the last of the four major categories of occupations, the other

  three being, in descending order, the scholar, the farmer, and the artisan. From

  the sixteenth century on, however, we often fi nd the merchant asking this

  question: “Why must a merchant always be placed below the scholar?” Even the

  scholars also openly expressed their sympathy for the merchants. Wang Dao-

  kun

  (1524–1593), for example, not only questioned the long- established

  state policy of “light taxes on the farmer and heavy taxes on the merchants,” but

  also went so far as to say, “Is a fi ne merchant necessarily inferior to a great

  scholar?”20 What is even more amazing is the following statement made by

  Wang Yangming, arguably the greatest Neo-