推 tenchai:沒毒桑，你還是說中文吧~~ orz 09/30 11:43
推 medusan:中文請見下一篇 09/30 12:00
→ medusan:話說原作是個說英語的外國人 09/30 12:00
The Dark Side of Confucianism 儒家學說的黑暗面
2004 10月12日星期二
原文網址: http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome/1097546969/index_html
若欲看漢英對照版，請至看板《Confucianism》 #358
Confucius, his name has become synonymous with Chinese culture, thought, and
philosophy. In Taiwan his birthday, September 28, is celebrated as Teacher旧
Day. Born at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period, Confucius (551?79 BC)
is probably the most revered and dominant of Chinese philosophers. So who
would criticize or challenge his teachings and what has this to do with
current Chinese politics?
Confucianism upholds the nobility of man; it preaches benevolence,
responsibility and reciprocity in relationships. Superiors should set an
example and inspire others to be good; they should change themselves before
they seek to change the world etc. etc. etc. How can such teachings have a
dark side?
A Taoist would simply say, 巣hen everyone sees good in the good, the bad is
already there,?but let us look into specifics.
First a look at the history, the teachings of Confucius and his disciple
Mencius (c.372~289 BC) began to gain official prominence in Chinese society
from the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC~8 AD) on. The Emperor Wu Ti founded an
Imperial Academy (124 BC) where officials would be specifically trained in
the Confucian classics for a year and pass exams for positions. This began
the civil service examinations. From then on the works of Confucius began to
be serve as the ideological background and framework of the state.
By the time of the Tang Dynasty (618~907 AD) the Confucian classics had
become firmly entrenched in the civil service examinations. To hold any
official district, provincial and national position in China you had to know
Confucian thought forward and backward and how to express it (not necessarily
believe it). Confucian classics became the Bible or at least the catechism of
the state. This would continue even when China as a country (not as a
culture) disappeared and it became part of the Mongolian and Manchu kingdoms.
After two thousand years it is no wonder that Confucianism became completely
ingrained as part of officialdom and subsequently part of the culture. People
were taught the Confucian hierarchy and that harmony lies in submission; a
pyramidic submission where the many submitted to the few as we shall see
shortly. Picture the benefits to the emperor and state officials learning a
system, which justified them at the top of the food chain and required all
others to be subservient. Who would not want to perpetuate such a system?
Confucianism was of course not the only influential tradition in Chinese
thought. The Legalist tradition developed in the fourth and third centuries
BC after the death of Confucius. Legalism found its fullest expression in the
Ch寛n Dynasty (221~207 BC). Machiavellian in aim and view, this tradition
focused not on what should be, but what is. It analyzed power, how to acquire
it, how to maintain it, and how to control the people with it. Disorder or
dissent of any kind in the state was not to be tolerated.
Han Fei-tzu (d. 233 BC) is considered the chief proponent of legalism. Where
Confucianism stressed man旧 potential for goodness, Legalism stressed man旧
potential for laziness, evil, selfishness, and deviation. These two schools
of thought started from completely different premises, but interestingly
enough, Legalism would be credited in part with providing the mechanism for
unifying all the warring states under Ch寛n Shih Huang (Shih Huang-ti), the
founder of the Ch寛n Dynasty.
The defining word for legalism is control, control, control and control. The
state needs strong rulers but most especially strong laws to keep man in
check. Han Fei-tzu stated that the emperor could use two handles to control
the behavior of his subordinates. These were rewards that would appeal to man
旧 greed and stiff punishments that would inspire his fear. Legalism旧 brief,
ruthless expression in the Ch寛n Dynasty was short-lived in history but it
left a lasting mark on Chinese thought in reality.
What is the link of these two unlikely philosophies? In Chinese society,
Confucianism would come to be held up as the ideal; while legalism would
become what was practiced. Despite their opposite views of the nature of man,
in this symbiotic relationship Confucianism旧 worldview would ironically end
up supporting the legalist position and herein is its dark side.
Confucianism was the product of an agricultural, feudalistic society; its
purpose was to keep harmony within the structure of such an outdated society.
To do this, it postulated that life should be seen in terms of five basic
relationships and four class structures. This is the base we must examine.
Simply put, the five relationships are emperor to subject; father to son;
elder brother to younger brother, husband to wife, and friend to friend. Some
would add a sixth, that of teacher to student. These relationships are role
relationships not personal relationships; they don急 change; they are part
and parcel of a system that is hierarchical and patriarchal.
Each of these relationships, except that of friend to friend depends on a
hierarchy. They contain superior and subordinate roles. Both the superior and
the subordinate have their duties and obligations, but let there be no
mistake; it is always in the context of superior and subordinate.
The four social groups or class structures of the society are the
scholar-gentry, the peasants, the artisans and craftsmen and finally the
merchants. The scholar-gentry were deemed fit to rule because of their
education. The peasants, the majority of the people, had second place and
were given the dignity of work; this supposedly was to compensate for the
fact that they had no real power. The artisans (3rd place) were allowed
artistic expression, which is probably better than being a hard-working
farmer. Merchants were given the lowest class because they went for profit (a
despicable factor for Confucianists). How many would not postulate the
opposite view that in the real world, money is power?
Is there a gap between ideal and practice? Today the world is trying to beat
a path to the great China market. At the same time the factories in China
pour forth all sorts of sundry items 遷ade in China.?Of those who have a
choice in this matter how many would freely choose a 嘆oble?life of a farmer
tilling the soil by the sweat of his brow? How many choose a more 続
espicable?but lucrative career? I rest my case.
However, to return to Confucian ideals. Life (as was said) is seen in terms
of role relationships, not personal relationships. Herein is the rub.
Initially the roles may have been spoken of as a superior/subordinate
relationship; in practice the change to superior/inferior is quick and almost
unnoticeable. Cut it whatever way you want; quote the obligations of those on
each side of the spectrum, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove,
one is on top and the other is on the bottom, one is in control and one is
not. There is no such thing as equality.
A father never switches roles with a son; a wife never switches roles with
her husband; an older brother never switches roles with his younger brother.
A teacher never switches roles with his student; the emperor never switches
roles with his subjects (barring a revolution in which case he is killed).
Why in the past 2000 years had the ideas of democracy and the equality of man
never been recognized until the present? Confucian structures would not allow
it.
Is this idealistic hierarchical structure that bad? Women, particularly
feminists most easily saw through the mutual responsibility sham. Confucianism
旧 concept of roles for life has dealt them all the bad cards. In such a
society, a woman is first subject to her father (a male), then to her husband
(another male) and finally if she is widowed to her son (another male). Women
had to know their place and stay in it.
In such a position a woman must either become submissive and hope the
superior lives up to his obligations or learn to compensate and fight for
power by becoming wily and manipulative, or resorting to cajoling and
nagging. A woman can never ask for straightforward treatment as an equal.
Males have always had the opportunity for balance. Even if they were sons to
their fathers and younger brothers to their elder brothers, they could gain
balance in their lives by being fathers to their sons and husbands to their
wives. Such was not the fate of women.
If anyone has lived in Chinese society for any length of time, you quickly
see that despite all the external rituals of consideration and displays of
harmony it is primarily a power culture. The relationships may be expressed
as ideally mutual, but they are hierarchical in practice. The authoritarian
father-knows-best mentality pervades. When you witness a divorce between a
man and a woman it is almost always a bitter, hate-to-the-death affair
because it involves not only the two people but also an affirmation or
negation of what each believes is the way life and society should be. The
bottom line question in all matters business, political and social comes down
to who has the power?
And Legalism, is it still a viable part Chinese political thought? Look at
the People旧 Republic of China (PRC). The 濯iberation?of the masses allegedly
took place over 55 years ago in 1949, yet in how many ways does authoritarian
control remain? The totalitarian one- party state still rules.
When the students (not radical revolutionaries) expressed the wish for more
democratic participation in Tiananmen Square in 1989, they were ruthlessly
murdered and their movement was put down. Here was no Confucian trust in the
benevolence of man旧 nature. It was a legalistic response that the Ch寛n
emperor would be proud of. In the name of 断reventing chaos?this and other
atrocities continue to be done.
Even in matters of religious expression, the state seeks absolute control.
The Falun Gong are beaten and jailed regularly simply because they wish to
gather in public. These elderly 遅adicals?are not to be trusted. In the
Catholic Church, the state wants to appoint all bishops. In Tibetan Buddhism,
Beijing chose the 11th Panchen Lama in defiance of the Dalai Lama. Control,
control, control.
Look further at the restrictions and continued monitoring and censoring of
news media and the Internet. The 濯iberated masses?are still denied free
access to information. They cannot be trusted with it. The list of controls
can go on and on.
What then is the strange symbiosis of Legalism and Confucianism? How does
Confucianism support such a controlling system? In politics it generates a
winner take all mentality; there is no such thing as a loyal opposition
party. Once a power is established, the hierarchy must be maintained.
Confucianism旧 hierarchical worldview is anti-democratic. There is no place
for dissent. You can speak of an emperor losing the 単andate of heaven?but
this euphemism is only applied after the fact to those who lose the power
struggle not to those who have still maintained it despotically.
In the name of harmony, Confucianism legitimizes and provides legalists with
the time they need to consolidate their control. Look at the histories of
self-appointed emperor Yuan Shih-kai (d.1916) who blessed China by dying
early and Mao Tse-tung who did not.
Chiang Kai-shek preached Confucian values but practiced a totalitarian,
one-party rule. His legacy of continued subjection of Taiwan to martial law I
have already treated in #12 of this series.
And what about other major philosophical traditions in Chinese thought like
Taoism and Buddhism? These may have influenced certain rulers and people but
they have never dominated central political thought. Interestingly enough,
Taoism allows the spark of individualism in a highly communal Chinese
culture. Taoism has become the safety valve to release the pressure created
by an over insistence on harmony. Taoism allows one to withdraw from the
world and operate in a different sphere. It is the thinking behind two
expressions that one often hears spoken privately. 荘he Laws are for other
people, not for me,?and/or 荘he Law is only there as a reference point.?
Buddhism on the other hand provides a viewpoint that promotes concern for
other people, those outside one旧 family. Always suspect in the eyes of
strict Confucianism, Buddhism is credited with removing the warlike spirit
and curbing the acquisitiveness of Tibetans who once had captured the capital
of the Tang Dynasty. Buddhism did not have such political influence on China,
which in true legalist fashion pursues its aims to control the past Manchu
conquered territories of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan etc.
There is nothing wrong with Confucian values per se. However, the true
examiner of any philosophical system must go beyond the system旧 professed
values and examine the underpinnings, presuppositions and 断aradigmatic
baggage?it brings with it. Platonism, for example, saddled western thought
with an outmoded dualistic way of perceiving the world for over 2000 years.
Many are still locked into a Platonic idealism.
Where should Chinese turn? They do have one example that has broken the
political mold of the past. Taiwan has shown that democracy is not
antithetical to Chinese thought. Democracy happened here. It came however not
from the Kuomintang ruling party but from the tangwai (those outside the
party) who were already on the island.
Taiwan旧 history in its experience of numerous and various outside rulers is
different from that of China. One ruler, Japan, had already established a
multi-party system and Diet form of government in the 1890旧 before Taiwan
came under its control. Taiwan旧 taste and struggle for democratic
participation had definite roots in its Japanese era when it had gained the
right to elect its own representatives to the Japanese Imperial Diet.
Is there a chance that those on the other side of the Taiwan Strait could
learn from Taiwan旧 struggles and example? This is highly unlikely. A false
interpretation of Confucianism旧 respect for history and tradition
interferes. This misinterpretation has already created a legacy of cultural
superiority that can only look backward for ideals. It prevents Mainland
Chinese from even thinking they could learn from a period tainted with
Japanese rule.
Taiwan and China look on Japan with different eyes. For China, Japan will
always be the cultural son, the student who learned from the Tang Dynasty.
The teacher can never change roles with the student; the father can never
change roles with the son. Japan will always have the inferior role.
It would also be unthinkable for Beijing to imagine it could learn from
Taipei (i.e. Taiwan). Since the Manchus once controlled a part of the island
of Taiwan, Beijing can only see Taiwan with eyes of control. Whenever Taiwan
offers the olive branch for open dialogue between the 鋳wo Chinas,?Beijing
responds in legalist fashion that it does not trust Taiwan旧 motives. As if
history has ever given Taiwan reason to trust the motives of the wolf on the
other side of the Taiwan Strait.
What is left? Legalistic control is not the answer. A reexamination of the
spirit underlying the May 4th Movement (1919) is needed to establish the
proper role of Confucianism. At that time at least the traditions of language
and literature were freed.
In the western world, it was learned that the separation of Church and State
was a necessary part of the development of democracy. Christianity still
remains a part of the culture and ideals, but democratic participation must
be free of it. In theory, in a perfect world, one can make a case for a
Christian state, an Islamic state, a Hindu state or a Confucian state. But
the world we live in is not the world where these religions and philosophies
were formed and it never will be. Perhaps those idealized pasts never existed
in reality.
The dark side of Confucianism with its roles and structures must be faced; if
not those with a legalist mentality and outlook will always manipulate it to
their ends.
--
▄▄ ▄▄ ▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄▌▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▄▌▄▄▌▄▌▌▄▄▄▄▌▌▄▌▄
▌▌▌█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▌▌
▌▌▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▌▌ 原圖by cAshoNly
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.115.147.240