Papers by David Elstein
Modern Confucianism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2023
Dao, 2016
From Anglophone writings, one could understandably form the impression that Confucian political t... more From Anglophone writings, one could understandably form the impression that Confucian political thought and modern democracy are uneasy bedfellows, if not outright antagonists. The majority of what one finds in English-language scholarship highlights the meritocratic elements of Confucian political thought (BAI Tongdong, Daniel Bell, Joseph Chan) or castigates liberalism for being founded on an untenable notion of an atomistic self, which should be supplanted by the relational and familial self of Confucianism (Roger Ames, FAN Ruiping, Henry Rosemont). In this narrative, this mistaken notion of self is the foundation of excessive appeals to rights and the litigious nature of Western (mainly American) society. Rampant individualism should be replaced by Confucian harmony. The twin themes of communitarianism and meritocracy dominate the Anglophone literature on Confucian politics, the occasional exception notwithstanding (such as Stephen Angle). KIM Sungmoon's new book is another exception, challenging both these positions while upholding the relevance of Confucianism to East Asian political practice. What he argues for, however, is a Confucian democracy that preserves Confucian social values along with liberal democratic institutions. The book is an attempt to defend this kind of Confucian democracy as not just possible, but necessary for successful democratic practice in East Asia. In the course of doing so, he makes telling criticisms of communitarian and meritocratic Confucian political theories, offering a welcome corrective to the impression one might easily get from Anglophone scholarship, that Confucianism steadfastly opposes not just liberal philosophy but liberal politics. Yet Kim has a distinctive vision; the "Confucianism" in his Confucian democracy is not merely lip service, but is crucial and substantive. Kim's criticisms of Confucian communitarians and meritocrats are cogent and serious, despite a few instances of somewhat loose interpretation. His constructive program faces a number of difficulties. His attempt to work out a Confucian notion of public reason is one such area. It is not clear in what sense this is a kind of reason, or Dao
Political thought is one of the most vibrant areas of recent Confucian philosophy. Despite many d... more Political thought is one of the most vibrant areas of recent Confucian philosophy. Despite many differences, all sides can probably agree on one thing: current East Asian governments, notably the PRC, are not practicing Confucian politics. Here I want to take a close look at one element of Confucian political thought and what it would mean to realize it. Most contemporary Confucians support a system of basic human rights, including a right to free expression. This is true of more liberal and democratic Confucians and is even supported by some who are not as friendly to democracy. Yet insufficient attention has been given to how a Confucian right to free expression can be justified and the scope of its protection.
Jiang Qing 蒋庆 (1953-) is one of the most influential proponents of reviving traditional Chinese c... more Jiang Qing 蒋庆 (1953-) is one of the most influential proponents of reviving traditional Chinese culture and thought today. 1 This influence is probably in part due to his unusual path. 2 Born in Guizhou province, Jiang was part of the generation whose study was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution. After finishing secondary school in 1970, Jiang worked in a factory for a while, collecting and studying forbidden books on his own, including Ruist texts. In 1974 Jiang joined the army and for the next few years studied Marxism intensively along with classical Chinese writings. When the college entrance exams were reinstated after Mao's death, he passed the exam and was admitted to study law in Chongqing. Here he became acquainted with Western philosophy and was attracted to liberal thought. During college he wrote an essay criticizing the Party interpretation of Marxism, for which he was denounced. He was given a position at the college after graduating, but his activities were closely monitored. He spent much of his time studying Buddhism and Christianity, but in 1984 discovered New Ruism and began to identify with that. However, he came to believe that New Ruists were mistaken in their attempts to derive liberal democracy from Ruism and had neglected the political tradition of Ruism. He increasingly felt true Ruism could not be taught within academia, and after managing to raise enough funds, he established the Yangming Academy in Guizhou, a private academy dedicated to the study and transmission of the Ruist classics. This choice to leave academia makes Jiang a notable figure in China today. But Jiang has attracted the most attention (and controversy) for his political views. While 1 On Jiang's significance, see (Bell 2012). 2 The rest of the paragraph is drawn from (Yu and Fan 2011). 2 many political scientists have considered how China could make the transition to democracy and several philosophers have argued that Ruism is compatible with democracy, Jiang rejects democracy for China. China should instead revive its own political tradition, the kingly way (wangdao 王道). Beyond China alone, he sees the kingly way as the solution to the problems engendered by democracy everywhere. The kingly way is not just the solution to China's political problems; it is the universal solution for every nation. Jiang thus turns the Western view on its head: instead of a democratic transformation for Ruist China, he advocates a Ruist transformation for democracies.
Beyond the Five Relationships: Teachers and Worthies in Early Chinese Thought
Philosophy East and West, 2012
Mou Zongsan's New Confucian Democracy
Contemporary Political Theory, 2012
Han Feizi’s Thought and Republicanism
Dao-a Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 2011
Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole ... more Han Feizi’s philosophy is usually represented as an amoral autocracy where the ruler is the sole political power and runs the state by controlling the people through rewards and punishments. While his system is formally autocratic, this article argues that the purpose behind this system bears some similarity to the republican political ideal of non-domination. In this interpretation, Han Feizi makes the ruler the sole power to mitigate the danger of the state being dominated by ministers. He does not employ republican institutions, but attempts to discourage the ruler from using his power capriciously in order to increase order and security in the state, which are his ultimate political values. Han Feizi is not a republican, but this similarity suggests that when revised for today’s very different circumstances, Han Feizian philosophy’s focus on impartial law can make a contribution to contemporary Chinese political thought.
Why Early Confucianism Cannot Generate Democracy
Dao-a Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 2010
A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democrac... more A central issue in Chinese philosophy today is the relationship between Confucianism and democracy. While some political figures have argued that Confucian values justify non-democratic forms of government, many scholars have argued that Confucianism can provide justification for democracy, though this Confucian democracy will differ substantially from liberal democracy. These scholars believe it is important for Chinese culture to develop its own conception of democracy using Confucian values, drawn mainly from Kongzi (Confucius) and Mengzi (Mencius), as the basis. This essay describes some obstacles to this form of Confucian democracy. It argues that considering the political philosophies of Kongzi and Mengzi in the context of their views on personal cultivation reveals that they oppose some of the central assumptions of democracy. They do not trust the public to make good decisions, and advocate government for the people, but not by the people. These philosophies alone cannot generate democracy.
The Authority of the Master in the Analects
Philosophy East & West, 2009
Book Reviews by David Elstein
A Reply to Professor El Amine
Philosophy East and West
© 2017 by University of Hawai‘i Press propriety (禮) belongs to both categories (although I argue ... more © 2017 by University of Hawai‘i Press propriety (禮) belongs to both categories (although I argue that it is to be understood differently depending on which angle it is viewed from (p. 116)). Is this categorization “a little arbitrary,” as Elstein worries? To some extent, it is: as he points out, it does not map onto any such categorization internal to the texts. But there is no question that the emphasis in the texts, in what concerns personal self-development, is on the attainment of ren, rightness, and ritual propriety (in its internalized form), and it is revealing that these are not associated with the common people. Whether or not the qualities that are in fact associated with the common people should be called virtues should not affect the crux of my argument that what is expected of them is significantly different from what is expected of Confucian disciples. Elstein writes, “There is an ambiguity in what it means to say that the purpose of government is the moral improvement of the people.” I completely agree. The aim of my book is precisely to sort through this ambiguity and to suggest what it does and does not mean. Does it mean that the Confucians, were they offered the vision of an ideal society where everyone is virtuous, would laud it? Sure. Does it mean that they themselves offer such a vision, or any suggestion that they view it as a likely outcome of their recommended policies, or even a hint that it is possible within the material world they are familiar with? Not so clear. I agree with Elstein that there are “conditions necessary for people to develop virtues themselves.” But these conditions do not merely amount to a protection from want. For everyone to become virtuous, what is required is no less than that everyone be free from manual labor. Yet in what I describe as the “Confucian understanding of the socioeconomic makeup of society” (p. 14), “there are those who use their minds and there are those who use their muscles” (Mencius 3A.4). The early Confucians do not entertain the possibility that things could be otherwise.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 2007
Gan, Chunsong 干春松, Back to Wangdao: Confucianism and the World Order 重回王道--儒家与世界秩序
Chan, N. Serina, The Thought of Mou Zongsan
Dao-a Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 2012
Jiang, Qing 蔣慶, Living Faith and the Kingly Way of Politics 生命信仰與王道政治
Dao-a Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 2011
Books by David Elstein
Dao Companion to Contemporary Confucian Philosophy, 2020
Dao Companion to Contemporary Confucian Philosophy, 2020
XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never ... more XU Fuguan is less known than his contemporaries and friends MOU Zongsan and TANG Junyi. He never developed a philosophical system on the order of theirs, feeling that the core of Confucianism is found in practice and not developing philosophical theory. Instead he wrote widely on Chinese intellectual history, literature, and aesthetics. Nevertheless, in many of his writings he defends a distinct perspective on Confucian thought and argues for its continued relevance in a modernizing world. This chapter focuses on three major areas of concern in Xu’s writings: his claim that humanistic study generally and Confucianism in particular must be related to practical concerns, his analysis of Confucian theories of human nature, and his claim that democracy can best realize the spirit of Confucian humanism. Sharing the common New Confucian views that human nature is good and that democracy is form of government most suited to Confucian societies, Xu had his own understanding and defense of these claims less reliant on elaborate metaphysical views. Instead he focused on practice and moral cultivation. In this regard, Xu departed from his mentor XIONG Shili as well as Mou and Tang. As he himself believed, this less metaphysical view is arguably closer to the classical thought of Kongzi and Mengzi. Though receiving less attention in Anglophone scholarship, Xu’s thought is more creative than commonly supposed.
Democracy in Contemporary Confucian Philosophy
Uploads
Papers by David Elstein
Book Reviews by David Elstein
Books by David Elstein