The author, Baocai Liu (刘宝才), is Professor of Northwestern University, China.
Translated from Chinese by Sherwin Lu
EDITOR’S NOTE: With the rapid growth of China’s economy and global influence, traditional Chinese culture and learning are receiving wider attention all over the world. But many people, Chinese and foreigners, scholars and laymen, have been mistaking Confucianism as most representative of traditional Chinese academic thought. Most of them are not to blame, however, because this distortion of the whole picture has been the work of many generations of ruling elites in the long past. This essay (a translation of the major part of the original Chinese version) succinctly but effectively explains how the distortion has come about and how the real picture should be restored.
THE TEXT
The current surge of popular interest in Chinese classics mainly centers on Confucianism. This tendency seems likely to go on unchanged for years. But since joining in the compilation of a History of Chinese Theoretical Thoughts, this author has become even more convinced that all the major traditional Chinese schools of thought are worth studying. Why? Here are the four reasons:
I. In Terms of Differentiation and Integration
The development of academic thoughts takes the two forms of differentiation and integration, alternating repeatedly after the pattern of integration–differentiation–re-integration–re-differentiation–and so on. When, with the development of history, the accumulation of collective knowledge comes to the point where a unified system of thought is sorely needed for a synthesizing re-organization, the process of integration would start.
II. In Terms of Difference in Focus
The different schools of thought had different focuses and made contributions in different fields. For Confucianism, it was political ethics. While it contributed to social stability in times of peace and prosperity, it appeared pedantic and alienated from reality when in troubled times. Daoism emphasized compliance with nature and presented original views on the world and on life. It was highly philosophical and somewhat aloof from politics and its influence on history was not so apparent but extensive, profound and lasting, reaching all social strata and social realms in all times. Legalism was an institutional school, providing answers for the solution of problems of the times mainly by promoting and implementing effective institutions. Its theory on the rule of law, being a departure from the rule of man, is a valuable legacy from the Chinese cultural tradition. The other schools of thought have also made contributions in their respective fields. Therefore, in terms of different focuses, all schools of thought are valuable and worth studying.
III. In Terms of Development of Academic Thoughts
The version of Confucianism sanctified by Emperor Wu of Han as the sole ideological authority was one which had already assimilated much from several other schools of thought. All the major dynasties since then, while singling out Confucianism as the one commanding system of thought, actually combined the so-called “benevolent kingcraft” with rule by force (“霸王道杂之”（《汉书•元帝纪》), or rule of law with a Confucianist façade. This decorative façade made it possible for Confucianism to pose as representing traditional Chinese culture. But we must be aware of two things. First, The Confucianism during and after Han continued to absorb from other schools of thought and from other cultures as well. Many Confucian scholars interpreted the classics they favored in their own ways, not necessarily sticking to what the classics really meant. They tended to credit Confucianist classics for whatever they believed to be truthful, including what they had accepted from other schools of thought. Secondly, There have always been a minority of scholars not belonging to the mainstream who refused to accept Confucianism as possessing more truth than other schools. By the end of the last monarchic dynasty, there was an even stronger current of dissention calling for dethroning Confucianism from its commanding position and replacing it on an equal footing with other schools of thought and classifying its literature into “history” and “schools of thought”, not as “classics”. In a word, throughout the history of Chinese academic thought, the positive values of all major schools of thought have never faded. All of them are treasures to be equally cherished.
IV. In Terms of Topical Relevance
In tackling major contemporary problems, the different schools of thought can still serve as valuable sources of insight and wisdom for viewing the issues in different perspectives and finding solutions taking all factors into consideration and producing better results. Such problems are: the polarization of rich and poor, corruption of government officials, global warming, aging of the population, etc. Confucianism with its ideas of benevolence and righteousness is a good source of reference for theories of social justice. The Daoist principle of compliance with nature provides the philosophical basis for environmental science and all other sciences and for the theory of balance and harmony in social development. And the Legalist school can contribute a rich stock of ideas about the establishment of the rule of law and all important social institutions.
Besides, all the schools of thought have additional values in providing good references on lower-level social issues. Take for instances, as many people are doing today, the application of Confucianist principle of good faith to business ethics, of Military Strategists’ (兵家) ideas to business competition tactics, of the School of Diplomacy’s (纵横家) maneuvering skills to the handling of international affairs, of the Inclusive School’s (杂家) principle of openness to the contemporary issue of cultural pluralism, etc.
In short, all traditional Chinese schools of thought are still relevant, not only to today’s China but to the whole world as well. Therefore, it is necessary to study each of the schools, to develop the valuable and discard the valueless in each of them. This is the impartial approach that should be adopted. To single out Confucianism as representing traditional Chinese learning, or to be hot on advocating Confucianism alone, as is the mainstream of today, is not the right approach. |
