Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  The first point of the Confucian philosophy of life arising out of this type of Chinese metaphysics is that life is right and good. Basically, this metaphysics speaks in terms of “the life of the universe.” Hence it is said that “change means reproduction and reproduction.“24 Confucius said many things to glorify life, like “The great characteristic of Heaven and earth is to give life,“25 and “Does Heaven speak? All the four seasons pursue their course and all things are continually being produced.” . . .26 Human life is the reality of a great current. It naturally tends toward the most suitable and the most satisfactory. It responds to things as they come. This is change. It spontaneously arrives at centrality, harmony, and synthesis. Hence its response is always right. This is the reason why the Confucian school said, “What Heaven has conferred is what we call human nature. To fulfill the law of human nature is what we call the Way.“27 As long as one fulfills his nature, it will be all right. This is why it is said that it can be understood and put into practice even by men and women of the simplest intelligence. This knowledge and ability are what Mencius called the knowledge possessed by man without deliberation and the ability possessed by him without having been acquired by learning.28 [pp. 121–125]

  What attitude should we Chinese hold now? What should we select from the three cultures? We may say:

  1. We must reject the Indian attitude absolutely and completely.

  2. We must accept Western culture as a whole [including conquest of nature, science, and democracy] but make some fundamental changes. That is to say, we must change the Western attitude somewhat [from intellection to intuition].

  3. We must renew our Chinese attitude and bring it to the fore, but do so critically. [p. 202]

  [Liang, Dongxi wenhua ji qi zhexue, pp. 54–202—WTC]

  RECONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY

  The following excerpt is from Liang’s “Reconstruction of the Village Community.” In it he addresses the problem of community organization by reference to the original community compact (xiangyue) advocated by Zhu Xi on the basis of his reconstruction of the earlier compact of the Lu family in the eleventh century (chapter 21). In the form recommended by Zhu and adapted later by Wang Yangming and other sixteenth-century Neo-Confucian reformers, Liang saw a type of voluntary, cooperative organization that could be adapted to modern needs but would avoid the passivity of the authoritarian, bureaucratic “village lecture” system officially established under the Ming and Qing (chapter 25). In this he reflected a consciousness shared by many earlier twentieth-century reformers that traditional China was riven by a gap between the top-heavy power structure above and a fragmented, individualistic, politically inert society below. In other words, he was addressing the lack of a more active and involved infrastructure such as more recently has been referred to as “civil society.” What he says reverses the claims made in some quarters that the “individualism” of the West stands in contrast to the “communitarianism” of Asia.

  In simple terms, we can indicate two points: one, the question of science and technology and two, the question of group organization. As for science and technology, everyone has seen how the West is superior and how we are deficient. . . . What I want to discuss now is the question of group organization.

  Westerners have always had everywhere group life, beginning from religion on to economics and government. Whereas Chinese have always lacked group life; everywhere it seems the whole is broken into parts. . . . [p. 51]

  What is meant by construction is nothing but the construction of a new structure of social organization; that is, to construct new customs. Why? Because in the past our structure of social organization was shaped out of social customs; it was not shaped out of national laws. . . . [p. 40]

  In the contemporary world, if the Chinese do not move toward group organization, in the future they will not be able to exist. Reality compels us toward organization, to turn in the direction of the West . . . but might the turn be incompatible with our old spirit? . . . Although Chinese lack group organization, they are not opposed to group organization; hence there is no necessary conflict.[p. 145]

  This is a time of great distress for the Chinese, a time caught in contradiction on either side, coming and going. That is to say, on the one hand the Chinese lack group organization, and at the same time they lack the establishment of individual liberty and equality; the two [deficiencies] both urgently await being made up. But if we emphasize the aspect of liberty and equality . . . then it will be very difficult for us to attend to the aspect of combining into groups and will cause the Chinese to be even more dispersed. If we take care of the aspect of group organization, emphasizing the West’s most recent tendency, then liberty and equality cannot be given enough play. . . . Relational ethics should allow both aspects to be established. As a result of giving play to ethical relations, the individual will necessarily respect the group, fulfilling the requisite obligation; the group will necessarily respect the individual, according it due liberty and equality. . . .

  [R]egarding the group organization we have just discussed, the principle of this organization is based in China’s idea of ethics. It is as if, to the five relationships of father-son, ruler-minister, husband-wife, friends, and elder brother-younger brother, there were added a relationship of group toward member, member toward group. . . .

  Once we have resolved the several conflicts and difficulties between [the spirits of] China and the West, then we can discover a new social organization. This social organization will still take ethical sentiments as its source and take the upward movement of human life [rensheng xiangshang] as its aim.. .. This is purely a rational [lixing] organization; it fully gives play to humanity’s spirit (reason) and fully absorbs the strengths of the Westerners. Westerners’ strengths are four: first is group organization—this sets right our being dispersed; second is the active participation in group life by the members of the group—this sets right our defect of being passive; third is respect for the individual—this furthers the position of the individual relative to before, completes the character of the individual; fourth is the socialization of wealth—this enhances social relations. This organization of ours completely encompasses these four Western strengths without any omission, hence we say that this organization takes China’s ancient spirit as its basis and absorbs Westerners’ strengths. . . . [T]his organization is one that humanity has never known before. [pp. 174–176]

  Above we discussed two aspects of our organization: one is to seek organization from reason [lixing], one is to start with the villages. . . . These two were originally the root of Chinese society. . . . What we are about now is to grow new sprouts from this root. . . . This new organization is just the supplementation and transformation of what earlier Chinese called “the community compact” [xiangyue]. . . . But the community compact referred to here is not the community compact promoted in the Ming and Qing dynasties by the government using political force; rather it refers to the community compact launched in the beginning by villagers themselves at the outset in the Song dynasty. That village covenant was the creation of Mr. Lü Heshu. [pp. 187–188]

  [O]ur transformation is not strange; if the ancients were born today, they would certainly want to transform the community compact, and, further, the result of their transformation might be similar to ours. Because people are alive, they adapt; those living in today’s society are certainly like this. The direction of supplementation and transformation is all one—to transform inactive into active. And supplementation and transformation can be divided for purposes of discussion.

  First: Turn inactive mutual relief into active undertaking. . . . We do not wait for disaster to come before providing relief; we want to be more active. For example, poverty is a large problem for the Chinese; we want to form producing and marketing cooperatives. We do not want merely to relieve poverty; we will actively make [society] unimpoverished. . . . The community compact is a bit inactive; we want to change it to be active, to add an active flavor; rath
er than wait until the last minute and give aid, the best would be not to let things come to this pass. . . . Earlier the Chinese did not much look for progress in their mode of life. For example, having hand carts and ox and horse carts, they could neglect to strive for cars and trains. This kind of attitude is also evident in the community compact. We, on the other hand, will change it into something active, encompassing the sense of striving for progress in active undertakings. . . .

  Second: Note that in the community compact there is an upward movement of human life [rensheng xiangshang], the stirring up of aspiration [zhichi, ambition]. This is basic to the community compact. . . . Aspiration is most important; without aspiration everything will be fruitless. This is the original idea of the community compact. Our supplementation and transformation [are as follows]:

  Our judgment is that earlier Chinese, in the community compact, overemphasized the goodness [shan] of the individual, how to perfect the moral character of the individual. Regarding the ideal of goodness, they seem a bit limited, as if goodness were not in an endless course of unfolding. That is to say, in the compact of the Chinese earlier, one can discern that they harbor a standard custom and think that it is enough to reach this standard. In fact goodness is inexhaustible, always in the course of unfolding. Yet in the community compact it is as if there is a set standard and as if it leans toward individual goodness. Its defects are leaning toward the individual and having limits. Our supplementing transformation is to regard society in place of the emphasis on the individual, to see an endless unfolding in place of what is limited. In other words, when we organize villages, right from the beginning we want to stir up aspiration, expand hopes. Expand what hopes? Just this: to transform society, create a new culture, create an ideal society, establish a new organization. . . .

  Third: This is a concrete question. . . . Our community compact is not just the compact of a single village; it is not that those in one village can encourage each other to goodness and that is sufficient. We want to move outward, to connect with outside places, near and far. Although the past community compact also had this idea, it was not active. From connecting village with village, we want gradually to reach to the connection of county with county, province with province; to make connections everywhere, to have mutual intercourse, to communicate information. Why do we want this? Because we want to transform society, create a new culture; it is not merely to make the individual good. Merely to make the individual good, it would not be necessary to do all this. If we want to transform society, then we as individuals are unable to transform it; it is necessary to make connections. One point is to engage in making connections, and another point is to establish an organ to promote progress. Not only do we want mutual encouragement toward goodness, but we want to stress progress in the mode of life, the area that was not stressed earlier.

  Fourth: This idea is something that was originally part of the community compact . . . but it is easily overlooked and forgotten by people, easily gotten wrong. What is this point? That the community compact organization cannot be practiced by relying on political power. . . . [pp. 199–202]

  In the practice of the community compact, relying on political power will not work, promotion by private individuals also will not work; hence, although in history many times there has been the intention to initiate it, however in reality none of these can be considered successful. I am afraid success could only be seen today. We understand that to rely on political power to do things—to use the power of command and coercion, if this kind of power is used, in each step it all is mechanical. . . . Each time it goes down a level, the further by a step it is from the place where it was initiated, the more it is passive, the more it becomes mechanical, the more it lacks vitality, the more it lacks energy, the more it is unable to fit the problems. . . . The more it is unable to fit problems, the more it loses its meaning, the more it becomes useless. . . .

  Our village construction [rural reconstruction] is the construction of social organization, and we often like to say that this social organization is something that grows, something that gradually unfolds, that grows from sprouts, that unfolds from hints. Its sprouts and hints are in the village and from the village will slowly unfurl to form a whole society. This unfolding or growth must wait on the progress in reality (the reality of how we go about living in society). Organization grows out of the needs of social life; it cannot be tacked on suspended in thin air, cannot be arbitrarily tacked on. Whatever is really in the midst of unfolding must be a need of actual reality, hence we say that the unfolding of organization must await the progress in reality. More specifically, it must await economic progress. Once progress gradually unfolds in the techniques of economic production, methods of management, and economic relations, then it will be possible to have a new social organization unfold. . . . Economic progress awaits people, and if people are not enlivened, then the economy . . . cannot progress. How can people be enlivened? It is necessary to set in motion the Chinese people’s spirit. How can the Chinese people’s spirit be set in motion? It is necessary to rely on the strength of life’s upward motion, to stir up aspiration. Otherwise Chinese people will become even more narrow, more unable to move ahead. We want to stir up aspiration, place economics in this kind of human life, allow human life to drive economics, control economics, enjoy the use of economics, not to cause economics to control human life. (Among Westerners, it is economics that controls human life.) If we want to accomplish this, then it is all the more a question of spirit, a question of human life, or, we could say, a question of culture. [pp. 205–206]

  [Liang, Xiangcun jianshe lilun, pp. 51, 140–145, 174–177, 187–188,199–202,205–106—CL]

  HU SHI: OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MODERN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

  The most surprising rejoinder to the critics of the West came from Hu Shi, who defended the “materialistic” West on the ground that it was indeed more spiritual than China.

  At present the most unfounded and more harmful distortion is to ridicule Western civilization as materialistic and worship Eastern civilization as spiritual. . . . The modern civilization of the West, built on the foundation of the search for human happiness, not only has definitely increased material enjoyment to no small degree, but can also satisfy the spiritual needs of mankind. In philosophy it has applied highly refined methods to the search for truth and to investigation into the vast secrets of nature. In religion and ethics, it has overthrown the religion of superstitions and established a rational belief, has destroyed divine power and established a humanistic religion, has discarded the unknowable Heaven or paradise and directed its efforts to building a paradise among men and Heaven on earth. It has cast aside the arbitrarily asserted transcendence of the individual soul, has utilized to the highest degree the power of man’s new imagination and new intellect to promote a new religion and new ethics that are fully socialized, and has endeavored to work for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

  The most outstanding characteristic of Eastern civilization is to know contentment, whereas that of Western civilization is not to know contentment.

  Contented Easterners are satisfied with their simple life and therefore do not seek to increase their material enjoyment. They are satisfied with ignorance and “not understanding and not knowing“29 and therefore have devoted no attention to the discovery of truth and the invention of techniques and machinery. They are satisfied with their present lot and environment and therefore do not want to conquer nature but merely [to] be at home with nature and at peace with their lot. They do not want to change systems, but rather to mind their own business. They do not want a revolution, but rather to remain obedient subjects.

  The civilization under which people are restricted and controlled by a material environment from which they cannot escape, and under which they cannot utilize human thought and intellectual power to change environment and improve conditions, is the civilization of a lazy and nonprogressive people. It is truly a materia
listic civilization. Such civilization can only obstruct but cannot satisfy the spiritual demands of mankind.

  [Hu, Hu Shi wencun, collection 3, ch. 1, pp. 1–13—WTC]

  SA MENGWU, HE BINGSONG, AND OTHERS: “DECLARATION FOR CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION ON A CHINESE BASIS”

  The increasing pace of Westernization in the early 1930s, especially in the universities, prompted further expressions of fear that Chinese culture might be wholly submerged. This 1935 declaration by ten university professors in the magazine Cultural Construction deplored the prevailing trend and, in the general vein of Liang Qichao and Liang Shuming, called for a synthesis of Chinese and Western cultures that would nevertheless be distinctively Chinese. Vague though this syncretism was, it attracted enough attention throughout the country that Hu Shi felt compelled to protest, as he did in the piece that follows the declaration here, this kind of “conservatism . . . hiding under the smoke screen of compromise.”

  Some people think we should return to the past. But ancient China is already history, and history cannot and need not be repeated. Others believe that China should completely imitate England and the United States. These viewpoints have their special merits. But China, which is neither England nor the United States, should have its own distinctive characteristics. Furthermore, China is now passing from an agricultural feudal society to an industrial society and is in a different situation from England and the United States, which have been completely industrialized. We therefore definitely oppose complete imitation of them. Besides the proponents of imitating England and the United States, there are two other schools of thought, one advocating imitation of Soviet Russia, the other, of Italy and Germany. But they make the same mistake as those promoting the imitation of England and the United States; they likewise ignore the special spatial and temporal characteristics of China. . . .