Post date: Oct 16, 2016 5:46:24 AM
This is the fifth post in a series for those who:
1- desire to read or teach Confucius' Analects as philosophy, but
2- lack knowledge about classical Chinese language, culture, history, philosophy.
(The translations from Chinese are my own; bear in mind, I'm still learning and practicing.)
This is also the last stage-setting post: the remainder are heavier on conceptual explication and argumentative reconstructive, and much lighter on historical context.
Part 1, On The Analects | Part 2, On Confucius | Part 3, On the Zhōu | Part 4, On Militarism and Legalism
--------------------------------------------------------------
On The School of Scholarly Learning
While Confucius acknowledges roles for military forces and government bureaucracy for establishing and maintaining social order, he understands strong military and effective bureaucracy as side effects of a more fundamental emphasis on culture (文 wén). His insight is that the fundamental difference between the peace and prosperity available during the Western Zhōu dynasty, and the growing tension and disorder during the Eastern Zhōu dynasty, is a matter of people no longer following the cultural traditions of the Zhōu. Whence, in Analects 3.14, Confucius recommends restoring Zhōu culture.
子曰：「周監於二代，郁郁乎文哉！吾從周。」
Zǐ yuē: “Zhōu jiān yú èr dài, yù yù hū wén zāi! Wú cóng Zhōu.”
The Master said: “The Zhōu, by considering the two [prior] dynasties, had such splendid culture! I follow the Zhōu.”
(Also see Analects 9.5.) He recommends, further, in Analects 15.1, that political leaders study (Zhōu) culture rather than warfare:
衛靈公問陳於孔子。孔子對曰：「俎豆之事，則嘗聞之矣；軍旅之事，未之學也。」明日遂行。
Wèi Líng gōng wèn chén yú Kǒngzǐ. Kǒngzǐ duì yuē: “Zǔ dòu zhī shì, zé cháng wén zhī yǐ. Jūn lǚ zhī shì, wèi zhī xué yě.” Míng rì suì hang.
Duke Líng of Wèi asked Confucius about military tactics. Confucius answered, saying: “In matters of ritual sacrifice and sacrificial vessels, I have reputable experience. In military matters, I am not yet learned.” The next day, he proceeded to leave.
This passage is not merely descriptive, reporting upon Confucius’ areas of expertise. It is also evaluative, expressing the judgment that understanding (Zhōu) culture is superior to understanding warfare. The passage, further, is advisory, recommending that politicians seeking a remedy for social disorder study (Zhōu) culture rather than warfare.
Confucius’ basic program for social reform centers upon reviving Zhōu culture throughout the territories. Consider, for example, Analects 6.17:
子曰：「誰能出不由戶？何莫由斯道也？」
Zǐ yuē: “Shéi néng chū bù yóu hù? Hé mò yóu sī dào yě?”
The Master said: “Who is able to go out except by using the door? How are there none, then, using this way?”
The “way” (道 dào) Confucius has in mind is the Zhōu way for governing and living among each other. The passage uses questions to mask a subtle analogy: just as leaving a room requires using a door, leaving behind growing social disorder requires using Zhōu culture. (See also Analects 7.20.)
Confucius’ reform program involves three central tactics: convincing rulers to respect and cherish Zhōu culture; training scholars (儒 rú) with knowledge of Zhōu culture; and dispersing those scholars to advise rulers about how to spread Zhōu culture among their subjects and adapt Zhōu culture to novel situations. This is most explicit in Analects 4.13:
子曰：「能以禮讓為國乎？何有？不能以禮讓為國，如禮何？」
Zǐ yuē: “Néng yǐ lǐ ràng wéi guó hū? Hé yǒu? Bù néng yǐ lǐ ràng wéi guó, rú lǐ hé?”
The Master said: “Can one govern the state by means of ritual convention and civility? Then what [difficulties] would there be? If one cannot govern the state by means of ritual convention and civility, what propriety [would there be]?”
For Confucius, good government involves respecting ritual conventions and exhibiting civility (or deference) toward others: conventions shape how to interact with others; civility, how to feel toward others during those interactions. (See also Analects 11.26, 12.20.) Rulers who govern by means of convention and civility thereby shape public interactions and private attitudes, among themselves as well as among their subjects. In doing so, the rulers acquire the capacity to shape their state for good or ill.
This is not to say that all ritual conventions and civility codes facilitate social order. Recall, for example, Analects 3.1, wherein Confucius criticizes the Jī family, charged with governing the State of Xíng, for enacting improper conventions. Confucius’ idea is that good conventions, and good codes for civility, produce good states; conversely, bad conventions, and bad codes for civility, produce bad states. But what determines whether conventions are good or bad? Not some objective standard existing independently of human society, as those familiar with Platonic notions of Goodness or Abrahamic notions of a supremely perfect God might suppose. Reading Analects 4.13 in light of other passages, such as 3.14 and 6.17, the answer must be Zhōu culture, for that is what Confucius endorses as the way to social order and harmony (see Analects 17.18).
Confucius lived as a failure. He failed to convince anyone to follow his program for social reform (see Analects 9.2, 14.38, 15.13). He persisted undeterred, training students as scholars of Zhōu culture. He intended these scholars, by virtue of their great learning and mastery of Zhōu culture, to help restore social order by helping rulers better enact proper conventions for good governing, and by helping commoners better enact proper conventions for living well with others. Because of his emphasis on scholars (儒 rú ) and learning, those who follow his approach to social harmony are classified as belonging to the School of Scholarly Learning (儒学 Rúxué). This school is known colloquially as Confucianism, even though Confucius’ name nowhere appears in its title.
As it turns out, after 250 years of costly and merciless warfare, the victorious Qín endorsed the Legalist solution to the problem of social disorder over Confucius’ own scholarly solution. But the Qín Dynasty was short-lived, and their successors, the Hàn, supplemented Legalist ideas about military power and bureaucratic management with Confucian ideas about culture and education. This Legalist/Confucian compromise remained the dominant approach to ensuring social harmony for over 2,000 years.