Participants:
Tu Weiming
John B. Cobb Jr
2012.02.25
Part I
以下内容节选自Tu Weiming. Toward A. Dialogical Civilizations. Dialogues, 2023.
English transcripts: Huang QiEditors: Misha A. Tadd, Jonathan P. Keir, Marek z JeziorekIt is a great honor for me to be here to talk with you, as I’ve been following your brilliant exposition of Christian theology over the years. I sense that your project, in understanding Christianity right now the 21st century, has been very open and pluralistic. You have a great deal of self reflexivity. You have a sometimes very critical and certainly very sympathetic understanding of the Christian tradition. I must say that I'm trying to do something similar with the Confucian tradition.In 1985 I gave a course on Confucian philosophy at Peking University. At the time, a number of people were interested, but many of them, especially intellectuals, graduate students, mentioned that it’s almost impossible for any of them to consider themselves as Confucians, or to identify themselves as being sympathetic to the Confucian tradition. They mostly saw the negative features. But then, over the years, there's been a major change. There are many kinds of evidence to show this change is not just temporary. I think the primary reason for this is the need for China to search for a new cultural identity.China has been, for the last 30 years, successful economically...but what is its cultural identity. I think China is now at a crossroads, ideologically, spiritually, and ethically. If we look at China in the broader context, not just in economic and political culture, but in culture terms. I use the term“Cultural China,” which involves not only China Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore—these societies primarily organized by ethnic and cultural Chinese, including the Chinese diaspora all over the world—but also a group of people who are connected with China neither by birth nor by marriage and still are interested in China in the long term perspective. This encompasses Sinologists to be sure, but also people in business, government, or people like you who engage with philosophical, ethical, theological, and religious positions. Then there are people who have spent some time in China, maybe even as tourists, but continue to be concerned about things Chinese. Another outstanding example is a group of American families—I'm told more than 1000 in and around the Boston area—who've adopted Chinese girls. They become sensitized to things Chinese.What kind role will the Confucian tradition be able to play in contributing to a communal and critical self-consciousness of the modern Chinese? I hope that it would be open, pluralistic, and with the self-reflexivity you’ve demonstrated. But on the other hand, because China underwent an extremely difficult period of transition, patriotism or nationalism turned out to be one of the most powerful forces. How can Confucianism be, in Robert Bellah’s sense, a civil religion that gives some direction, some sense of meaning, and some basic values to the Chinese people and Cultural China as a whole? This is very clearly different, and there is the possibility of all kinds of unintended consequences that could occur if the tradition becomes hijacked or politicized as an excuse for very narrow, chauvinistic national sentiments. This is one of the questions I’m deeply concerned with.Just on that, can you tell me is there within Confucianism an emphasis or a theme that clearly encourages Chinese to have loyalties, commitments, and concerns that are wider than the nation?Just the understanding of being human would be the main...? Yes. If we want to characterize the Confucian approach to life, it is the process of learning to be human. In the Great Learning, there’s a very specific statement that learning to be human should take a self-cultivation as the root. Yet, from self-cultivation to regulation of the family, to harmonization of the community, to governance of the nation, and hopefully to peace of All Under Heaven is a process of going beyond forms of closed particularism to develop a kind of public spiritness. I would say over the years one great contribution of some of the later Confucians, following especially the Mencian idea and the earlier the notion of the unity between Heaven and humanity, is that learning to be human is not anthropocentric. It has to go beyond anthropocentrism. It is not simply the community of the living, not simply man in the animal kingdom, but even includes care for plants, grass, mountains, and rivers.For example, this one very powerful statement by an 11th century Confucian thinker, Zhang Zai, said, “Heaven is my father. Earth is my mother. Even such a small creature as I find intimacy in their midst. All the universe is my body and that which directs the universe is my nature. All human beings are my brothers and sisters and all things are my companions.” This even includes the notion that natural things, using Thomas Barry’s idea, are not a collection of objects but a communion of subjects. This notion about not only All Under Heaven, but also the cosmos as an integral part of the human has been very strong. That may provide resources for criticizing not only nationalism but even anthropocentrism.Yeah, I’ve not been as concerned about anthropocentrism as I have about nationalism.As I understand it, many people were influenced simultaneously by Confucianism and Daoism. There wasn’t felt to be any real antagonism between the two. Confucianism emphasized much more behavior within human society. Help correct me if I’m wrong.I have only the most lay understanding of these matters, but my sense is that Confucianists tended to put a great deal of store by tradition and by the reenactment of patterns and rituals.Daoists tended to put more store by spontaneity so there would be some tension there probably. But Confucianism was not anthropocentric in a way that would say the Daoists are wrong in their emphasis.But, you see, I think human beings everywhere have a very strong tribalistic tendency. It’s always led to much conflict and struggle. [laughs].In our world we simply can’t afford it anymore. One of the questions I ask about any proposal for a civilization is what within that proposal will work to counter the perfectly healthy concern and interest in being part of a community and so forth? Having grown up in Japan, I think of the Japanese instance, and I think Confucianism adapted itself rather readily and comfortably to the nationalist context.Don’t misunderstand me, Christianity has often adapted itself to nationalist contexts too. But there has been a long history of explicit tension in the West between church and state that makes the opposition to nationalism much more evident in the monotheistic traditions of the West and, perhaps, even more in Christianity than in the others, though that’s a complicated question to discuss.This is not a criticism of Confucianism but just to say when I ask the question how can the Chinese have a civilization? Since I think China is now already one of the great world powers and is still advancing in that respect, whereas the United States is declining in that role. It’s very important for the planet what culture China has, yes. Absolutely. I think Robert Bellah recently observed that the two most nationalistic countries turn out to be China and America, in the sense that they think they are not only the best, but also that they are the only culture that is able to transform the world. This means ideas of regime change and difficulties with rising above national interest on the American side. After China has been humiliated for so long and changed so dramatically, it’s easy to understand why the Chinese have become, not just patriotic, but nationalistic. But in terms of the evolution of the Confucian tradition and also the view toward the future, we see a real internal conflict. It’s not just Confucianism with Daoism, but also Confucianism with itself. The difference between Confucianism and Daoism is that the Daoists actually tempted Confucius. The proto-Daoist said the world is deteriorating; there’s no way we can save it; just get out of it. It’s almost like the Caesar thing where we should render things to God.I didn’t realize they had such a pessimistic view.Yeah. Confucius, himself, responded that “I am human being among other human beings.” In the more dramatic way, he said, “I cannot herd with birds and beasts.” If the world is in order, then there’s no need for me to worry about it. Precisely because of this disintegration of civilization, you’re morally obligated to be part of it. Then the danger is being identified with the status quo, which is Max Weber’s understanding of Confucianism as a submission to the world. This worldliness is the reason why I think it’s very important to underscore the religious or ethical-religious dimension of the Confucian tradition. It’s not secular humanism in the sense that it emerged in the modern West after the enlightenment.It is spiritual humanism. I think one way of looking at it is if you take the example of Mencius. His self-identification as a shi 士, which means either a Confucian literatus or scholar official and may be comparable to the modern idea of an intellectual, involves the person’s ability to tap quite a few different resources. One is subjectivity or self-cultivation. Mencius further believed that human nature is good in the sense that we are all capable of feeling, willing, knowing, and sensing what is appropriate. These help us to be able to stand on our own. The will of a commoner cannot be snatched away, even though the commander of three armies can be snatched away. So he has the idea of the will.But also, he can tap historical resources. I’m not alone; I’m the inheritor of Confucius, the Duke of Zhou, or even before. Then there is the futuristic outlook. What we do now is not simply for the moment. Sometimes he used the expression “hundreds of generations from now.” It reminds me of the African proverb, “The Earth is not a gift from our ancestors. It’s a treasure entrusted to us by numerous future generations.” Then there is the transcendent knowledgedimension. That is what you do here is for the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven is diametrically opposed to the idea of Divine Rights of Kings, because inevitably “Heaven sees as the people see, and Heaven hears as the people hear.” The ruler’s responsiveness to the people in general is an indication whether he has the mandate or not. It’s a broader, humanistic context.But we have to admit that in the history of China, ever since the imperial unification following the Qin and Han, there’s a powerful force of the government that uses or sometimes abuses the Confucian tradition for establishing a social order. There is the hierarchical system and the importance of harmony, but sometimes harmony is confused with uniformity and obedience. Filial piety is linked to obedience. The tension is always there. I think we see the unfolding of these two forces within the Confucian tradition.I would say China is not a fight between Confucianism and Legalism, but between highly legalized Confucianism and Confucianism that is more compatible with the Daoist idea of the free person. But it’s not really that simple because Confucian intellectuals are part of the world and they want to become prominent in order to spread their influence, and in doing so, some of them maintain their moral integrity and some of are them totally corrupted by the regime. Also, the Chinese political system, including the bureaucracy and even personalities such as the emperor and the ministers, has also been deeply under the influence of Confucian ideas.Well, the one place where transcendence of society and the status quo is clearest is with the Mandate of Heaven. I think that’s an aspect of Confucianism that most of those in the West who have become interested in Confucianism have downplayed. I’m curious whether in the revival of Confucianism in China it’s also being downplayed.I think so. Yet, maybe there is a paradox. When Matteo Ricci first came to China to spread Catholicism, he urged Confucian scholars at the time to return to the origin of the Confucian tradition by identifying the importance of Heaven as a transcendent other because it’s functionally the equivalent of God.
He tried to undermine or deconstruct the so-called Neo-Confucian worldview, which has a more organic view of the world where God is an integral part, even though creativity itself is an integral part of the cosmic transformation in which human beings also take part.
I obviously like it being an integral part. [laughs].I obviously like it being an integral part. [laughs].That’s what for me seems to be important. I say it with great hesitation because our record in the West is so sketchy. Nevertheless, there is the sense that we should not get stuck in tribalism. Of course, we should be patriotic and we should be loyal to our local communities. I mean all of those loyalties are obviously important, but all of them should be subordinated to something that is of universal relevance. We have that in principle in our tradition. We turn it into idolatry over and over again. It’s not that I think we have a great record in the West, but I still I don’t quite know how we can hope for the people of a great power to relativize that power.Absolutely, yes. I think that one great lesson China ought to learn is that the absolutization of the relative can turn out to be extremely dangerous.In the tradition of Confucian culture there is this conception that Heaven creates but humans complete, or following Heaven’s project human beings are responsible to bring it to fruition for the human community. Very early on you can talk about Heaven, using Christian analogy to be sure, as omnipresent and omniscient, but definitely not...But hopefully not omnipotent. On that point, you see, I like Confucianism much better than... [laughs].Right, right. One consequence that may even be positive is that human beings are not simply observers or appreciators; they are participants. You can even use this more radical term co-creators. One way of looking at this is that the dichotomy of the either/or will have to be substituted by the notion of both/and. This means there’s no separation between body and mind, spirit and matter, creature and creator, or even secular and sacred. In this particular context, it’s difficult to talk about secularization because it began with the world here now, began with the world, or from the Buddhist point of view with the Red Dust, not the other shore, not the Pure Land. From the Christian point of view, it’s the world of Caesart.Yet, the important thing is not to recognize the everydayness or the power relationships in the world as they appear because there’s some deeper meaning in the world, which has to be transcendent because the highest level of human flourishing is not the accomplishment of the person but the unity between Heaven and the human. Heaven is the highest aspiration in terms of both the source of creativity and the source of meaning.Yet, since human beings are participants and co-creators, they have tremendous power and influence, not just in anthropological terms but even in evolutionary and cosmic terms. Therefore, there is an old statement that human beings will be able to survive all natural disasters including the flood. There was a myth of the flood, but instead of the Noah solution there was an attempt to transform the flood into an irrigational system.The Sage King Yu was considered very successful. It’s a very elaborate story, this myth. But at the same time, human beings can never, in the long run, escape the disasters that are manmade. This is very, very strong. Therefore, the ethical responsibility began early. The assumption is those who are more powerful, influential, and have access to both material and nonmaterial resources ought to feel more obligated to promote the harmony and well being of society as a whole.Well, I think you know that I love everything you are saying. This is what we are trying to turn Christianity into also. But let me indicate things that I don’t know how fully they are present but are important to me.Whitehead has a great emphasis on adventure. The general image of Confucian society is stability and the capacity to pull together in a common pattern through time. Of course, adventure suggests historical change, and in some way progress, although it’s more a difference rather than progress for Whitehead. I’m curious. You probably have reflected on that. Is that a real difference, or does Confucianism encourage a radically historical consciousness? I’m curious. You probably have reflected on that. Is that a real difference, or does Confucianism encourage a radically historical consciousness?I think apparently the difference is very clear, very marked, because Confucius said, “I’m a transmitter rather than a maker,” almost in the sense that I’m an inheritor rather than an adventurist, or rather than a creator. But if we examine...In fact, he was the adventurer [laughs].Absolutely. If you look at it, and this is what I call historical consciousness, in a sense what you do here now is not creating something out of nothing. It is a continuation of a long tradition. I think it reminds me of T. S. Eliot’s notion about individual talent and tradition. The individual talent or the creativity of not just one individual but maybe through the inspiration of one individual group of people is not simply to add to a cumulative tradition, but to reconfigure or sometimes radically transform it. We often like to use the word creative transformation of what has happened. In that sense, you have to do it with a view to the future, but there’s no unilinear progression built into that system. I don’t want unilinear progression.That’s something I think we got into trouble with, even including Marx, starting from Auguste Comte’s idea that human history evolved from religion to philosophy and then to science. But the human factor is critical, meaning the participation of the human in this process. I think one danger, which is quite evident now, is precisely this emphasis on stability, on harmony. If you don’t allow adventure or don’t allow some creativity, the obsession with stability may lead to major, major disruption.Let me take a very concrete case. At least as an outsider it seems to me that filial piety is a very fundamental teaching of Confucianism. Is there within the Confucian tradition the sense that this particular structure of the family is one good structuring of the family that is appropriate in certain historical, cultural contexts, but that other family structures might supersede it in changing times?Certainly, there’s a normative idea about the critical importance of the family. Of course, we can use now a normal family, but I think the situation is more complex. People may give the impression that the Confucian approach to the family is not only very positive, optimistic, but even somewhat romantic to underscore the warmth and importance of the family. But that’s not the case at all, because one of the great myths of the Sage King Shun is that he came from the worst possible family. The father was abusive, very brutal. The mother totally self-centered, and his half-brother was completely alienated from not only himself but from society. Yet, Shun managed against overwhelming odds to harmonize the family, and so he became a Sage King. Most of the other people just failed to do that.There’s a clear understanding that a family is a complex system, just like self-cultivation is complex, because a family’s differentiated by age, gender, status, power, influence, and so forth. All members of the family, which can be large or small, have to be a contributing member or at least passively receiving member of the stability of the family.There was a story in the Tang Dynasty where the emperor learned about a family that lived under the same roof for nine generations, and so the patriarch was invited to the court to be honored. He was in his 90s and couldn’t quite express himself. He asked for a piece of paper. He wrote one character on the piece of paper in Chinese, ren 忍, which means tolerance or endurance.Even in a family of three or five if there’s one person like a son or daughter who refuses to collaborate, the family becomes dysfunctional. So it’s extremely difficult to manage the family. Now the question is about different kinds of family.Exactly. About family today.I think the U.N. talks about five kinds of families. I think from the Confucian position it would have been a rather a surprise. This is not only for Confucians, but for all families.The same thing’s true in the West that these are surprising changes. [crosstalk].
I think the Confucian position is the primacy of the parent/child relationship is absolutely essential......for a healthy society. …for human survival. Unlike other animals, the dependency need is very high. According to filial piety, when your parents die you observe the mourning ritual for three years, three years meaning probably 18 months or so, and this is necessary precisely because of repaying the debt. The parent’s love for their children is totally natural, whereas the children will have to be educated and sometimes disciplined to be filial. There’s one statement, actually, in the Classic of Filiality where a very good student of Confucius asked the Master, “To be obedient to ones father, what is your view on this?” Confucius actually was angry, he said, “What is this? In the normal situation, the king needs seven powerful critics to remonstrate with him. The regional governor needs five, and the local ruler needs three. It’s absolutely necessary for the son to encourage the father to be the father ideal. If the son allows the father to indulge in his problems, this is to push father into an unrighteous position.”Another more dramatic example tells of this same student who was hit by his father and really hurt. Confucius yells at the student very angrily saying, “If your father comes with a small bamboo stick, you might tolerate it. However, if your father comes with a big stick, you run.” This is because if you get hurt, it will reflect upon the brutality of the father and be worse. There’s always this negotiation.Once there was a paper, again by Robert Bellah, called “Father and Son in Confucianism and Christianity.” In that he was very, very Weberian. He said, “In the Confucian tradition there’s not enough resources within the father/son relationship to transform society because of the idea of obedience. Whereas, in the Christian tradition there’s, even in terms of church and state, always a different sanction, not to mention the idea of the wholly other.”But I pointed out to him that it’s not just the father as the father in the concrete, it’s the father ideal. There’s a rectification of names: fathers should act like fathers, sons should act like sons. If a father doesn’t act like a father, it’s obligation of the son to change it. There’s both that tension and that space for some transformation.That is being reflected on and considered today, I imagine, in Confucian circles because I would think one of the reasons for some resistance to the renewal of Confucianism would be its tendency to be conservative in some of these respects. Right. Also, there’s a change in the United States too. I don’t know why, the liberal agenda has been relegated to the background now. Everybody says, “I’m a true conservative,” especially in the Republican Party. If we use the ecological term, it is conservationist. There’s one tradition, I think maybe in keeping with Edmund Burke and others, where civilization has to be not only preserved and revitalized, but also involved in a process of conservation. What actually happened in the cultural revolution is total abandonment of that sense of continuity, which is diametrically opposed to the revolutionary spirit. I think Whitehead’s notion of adventure is very different from this radical revolutionary spirit.”I think organic solidarity is quite critical for its transformation. Right now this is also the case. Many, many scholars, especially those who were very radical before, now use the word conservative in that sense. They say, “Well, I am a conservative.” But what they really mean is that I take history and the tradition seriously in my understanding of the present situation.But you see how one could affirm that one is faithful to the Confucian tradition and, at the same time, would support gay marriage.Let me use an example of a monk. I actually moderated a meeting where he was one of the participants, and he, of course, talked about peace and compassion. It was just overwhelming that one person asked the question, “Look, I know you’re very compassionate, but why do you criticize homosexuality?” He used a very dramatic way to respond. He said, “I’m a monk and I’m not familiar with many of these complicated things. But I think if you look at a man and a woman, they fit very well. Now, if there’s a couple involving two men or two women who love each other, care for each other, and lead a family in organized society, then in legal and all other situations they ought to be protected. They have their rights. However, from my limited point of view, the relationship of a man and a woman seems more natural than that.” Everybody laughed out loud.”But I think from the Confucian point of view, because the yin-yang idea, creativity is based upon difference, even in terms of sexuality. Of course, we can desexualize it to say the differences lie somewhere else, maybe in race, in position, and so forth, but in the yin-yang model, then I don’t know whether we can even use the word normal. The Confucian vision of the ideal situation is the creative interaction between the two, also between Heaven and Earth. For example, if Earth is on top, then that’s creativity. If Heaven is on top and Earth is below, Heaven flows upward as Earth sinks downward. It’s not creativity. Creativity involved interaction.I would say that if something like this happens in China, I think the emotions generated in terms of legal concerns would not have happened. I think the Chinese would be willing, even under the Confucian tradition, to say, “Wow. That’s their own affair. I don’t think that violates any basic principle.” But still, some people would look at it negatively.
Sure. Obviously there are all kinds of emotional feelings and so forth. My question was just another way to get at the issue of how drastically society can change and still be a Confucian society..Because our image or impression is...Conservative or hierarchical, right.Well, the hierarchic issue, it isn’t that. I just mean the sense of a stable order of society and how that can best be achieved is central to the Confucian idea of how things should be.Right. In the early times, when Confucianism became a state ideology in the Han Dynasty (206 BCE- 220 CE), there was a major transformation. In one of the texts which is the result of a court debate—so it can be considered as officially sanctioned—there’s a statement which has become a major bone of contention and a site of debate. It says a stable society requires the authority of the father over the son, the authority of the ruler over the ministry, and the authority of the husband over the wife. It’s hierarchical, authoritarian, and male chauvinistic. In terms of textual analysis, this is very comparable to the Legalist idea that if the sons are unruly, if the ministers do not obey, if the wives are more powerful than husband, society will disintegrate.Now, if you look at Mencius, when the relationships of the family are first discussed, it’s always reciprocal. The ruler should be benevolent, so the ministers can be loyal. The father should be loving, so son should be filial. The older and the younger brothers are the same. Even with husband and wife, there’s a division of labor. We may have a different sense of division, but division of labor is considered critical. That reciprocal model and the more hierarchical model, these two are different. But now I’m reminded by some of the Sinologists that if you even look at hierarchical model with the ruler having authority over the ministers, but all the examples given turn out to be how the ministers remonstrate with the ruler. That’s also true with sons remonstrating with the fathers and wives remonstrating with the husbands. It’s at least ambiguous; the chain of command is not that clear.It’s very similar. In the New Testament, Paul’s teaching about family is hierarchical, but with the emphasis upon the husband being generous and loving his wife. But I’m primarily just trying to sense, in the biblical tradition that there are basic changes in history which even reshape the relationship between humanity and God creates a sense of looking for a new age in the future and that kind of thing.Sure, the coming of Christ.I just wasn’t sure whether anything like that was characteristic. I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad at the moment. I’m just...Right. It’s probably if not completely absent, certainly not pronounced. It seems to me that sometimes in comparative religious studies one culture can have a symbol or an important idea at the center of intellectual debates for thousands of years, while you cannot find the functional equivalent in another, or even if you find it the debate turns out to be totally different. Some people say the idea of God in the Christian sense is not even a rejected possibility within the Confucian tradition, because it’s never imagined. Heaven is the functional equivalent, but fundamentally different. If we look at medieval, European theology, and some of the modern thinkers including Kant, the power of that transcendent “other” shapes the intellectual discussion. It’s incredible. But that discourse did not happen in traditional China.Now the big question is why? I think one of the reasons—of course, you mentioned that with the advent of the human the whole equation changed—is a very strong belief that human nature is conferred by Heaven. It’s comparable to the idea of the divinity in the human. But then the implication drawn from that idea is that through our own self-understanding, and not just rationality, we appreciate Heaven. We can never understand fully the meaning, the resource, and the creativity of Heaven, but we are part of it. In a way, if you extend that analogy, we can never understand our own nature in the true sense of the term, because it’s heavenly endowed. Yet, the relationship is an intimate one. That’s why I use the term, which has generated a lot of criticism, imminent transcendence. That’s exactly what we Whiteheadians want...We spend a lot of time critiquing the traditional doctrine of God, so we’re not disappointed to find that that has never developed. I think you’re very fortunate not to have had that.We spend a lot of time critiquing the traditional doctrine of God, so we’re not disappointed to find that that has never developed. I think you’re very fortunate not to have had that.Whitehead considered this the curse on the history of religion, the idea of a divine, omnipotent controller of everything. It’s not even found in the Bible; it’s an invention of later ChristiansI agree with you. Gordon Kaufman also made this rather explicit. One question is that if you look at the Confucian tradition, maybe, again, quite Whiteheadian, there’s no concept, no personality, no institution, no dogma, if you can use the word dogma, that is not subject to criticism, falsification, or rejection.
