Op-Ed Contributors

Confucius and East Asian modernity ethic

By Tu Weiming (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-09-29 07:50

The assumption of the 1960s when the modernization theory in vogue at Harvard that the worldwide process of rationalization, defined in terms of industrialization, urbanization, Westernization and modernization, would wipe out cultural, institutional, structural, and ideational differences is no longer tenable.

Globalization is inevitably a process of homogenization. The conspicuous presence of English in any form of international discourse, the spread of fast food, United States-style entertainment, and youth culture are obvious examples. Yet the thesis of convergence, meaning that the rest of the world will eventually converge with the modern West, in particular the US, is at best an American dream.

In the 1980s, development economists and comparative sociologists advocated the thesis of reverse convergence occasioned by the so-called miracles of Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons (South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan and Hong Kong). "Asian values", "network capitalism", and "the Asia-Pacific Century" were advanced as alternatives to Western modernism.

Obviously, Asian business leaders can and should learn from the West. Actually, for more than 150 years, East Asian intellectuals have been devoted students of Western learning.

The first character in The Analects of Confucius is "learning" (xue). Learning to be human is a ceaseless process of self-realization. Understandably, among non-Western societies, East Asia has been most thorough in its commitment to Western learning. But the assumption that "the quest for wealth and power" was the primary motive of East Asian intellectuals to emulate the so-called "advanced techniques" of the West is misleading.

It was the Western civilization behind the gunboats and gunfire that truly impressed Confucian literati. For them, the West symbolized the effectiveness and efficiency of soldiers and traders rather than the institutions and underlying values that constituted the totality of the Western impact. The so-called Self-Strengthening Movement (1861-95), involving building of an industrial infrastructure and training generations of experts during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), could not have come about without the awareness that leaning from the West, which required a long-term national effort, was necessary for China's survival.

As a result, there is affective deficiency in Western learning and cognitive deficiency in identifying with traditional China. In a deeper sense, the predicament of contemporary Chinese intellectuals also lies in their unquestioned commitment to a particular version of the Enlightenment of the modern West. They believe that secular humanism as exemplified by the French Revolution (1789-99), and its attendant positivism, utilitarianism, scientism, materialism and progressivism is the only path for China's survival and progress.

But despite the prominence of the Enlightenment mentality among the Chinese scholarly discourse, the need for broadening its intellectual scope and deepening its ethical basis is obvious. As feminists, ecologists, communitarians and comparative religionists have said, the Enlightenment mentality is seriously flawed. Premised on anthropocentrism, instrumental rationality, Euro-centrism, male orientation and egoism, it is inadequate in providing symbolic resources for understanding religion, nature, community and cultural diversity.