4,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Passerino
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Reinventing Confucianism is a pioneer presentation of the New Confucian Movement, which has developed in China in the aftermath of the 1919 May Fourth Movement. The book offers a brief history of this current of thought, reviewing the three generations of leaders from the 1920s to the present, and describes the life and thought of eleven main figures representative of the philosophical development of China in the 20th century. We are introduced to Liang Shuming, the forerunner of the movement; Ma Yifu, the Confucian hermit; Xiong Shili the metaphysician; Zhang Junmai, an advocate of political democracy and constitutionalism; Feng Youlan, the renowned philosopher; He Lin, a follower of Hegel; Qian Mu, the historian; Tang Junyi, the spiritual philosopher; Xu Fuguan the intellectual histo rian and sharp columnist; and finally Mou Zongsan, with his elaborate metaphysical system, considered by many as the crowning of this collective philosophical endeavor. Umberto Bresciani also discusses the third generation of the movement and the renaissance of Confucian studies in today’s China.
The book is the most complete assessment to date of the accomplishments, limits, and future of a movement now situated at the center of the Chinese intellectual landscape.
Umberto Bresciani introduces to us the history and central issues of the New Confucian Movement, and presents the life and thought of eleven leading figures. He also discusses the third generation of the movement and the renaissance of Confucian studies in today’s China as well as the accomplishment, limits and future of the movement.
This book is a precious reference for anyone interested in the history of Chinese philosophy and cultural history. Its focus on comparative culture and thought makes it an indispensable tool for research and teaching in these fields.
Umberto Bresciani
1942 Born in Ca’d’Andrea, Cremona, Italy.
1962 High School Graduate (Maturità Classica), Liceo Ballerini, Seregno (MI), Italy.
1968 Licentiate of Philosophy & Theology, Studentato Teologico Saveriano, Parma, Italy.
1969 Entered Chinese Language Institute (Annexed to Fujen University, Taipei, Taiwan).
1973 B.A. (major: History; minor: Chinese Studies), University of Maryland (U.S.A.), Far East Division.
1975 M.A. Chinese Literature, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
1983 Ph. D. Chinese Literature, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Professor of Italian Language: National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei (since 1974).
Professor, Dept. of Italian Language & Culture, Fujen University, Xinzhuang, Taipei, Taiwan (since 2003).
Umberto Bresciani has lived in Taiwan for over 40 years.
His main interest is Chinese philosophical and religious thought and comparative theological studies.
Main publications
Books:
Xifang hanxuejia yanjiu wenshidongyi de shangdui (Evaluation of research by Western sinologists on the Wenshidongyi), dissertation for the Ph.D., Chinese Literature, Taipei: National Taiwan University, May 1983.
Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement, Taipei: Ricci Institute, 2001.
La filosofia cinese nel ventesimo secolo – I nuovi confuciani, Roma: Urbaniana University Press, 2009.
Il primo principio della filosofia confuciana (Ebook), Gaeta: Passerino Editore, 2014.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Ähnliche
Umberto Bresciani
Reinventing Confucianism
The sky is the limit
Table of contents
ABBREVIATIONS OF THE MAIN SOURCES
PREFACE
FOREWORD BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ONLINE EDITION 2023
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT
THE BASIC TENETS OF THE NEW CONFUCIANS
LIANG SHUMING: THE FORERUNNER (1893 – 1988)
MA YIFU AND THE SIX ARTS (1883-1967)
XIONG SHILI THE METAPHYSICIAN (1885 - 1968)
THE OBSTINATE DEMOCRACY OF ZHANG JUNMAI (1887 - 1969)
THE PERPLEXING FIGURE OF FENG YOULAN (1895 - 1990)
HE LIN’S NEW PHILOSOPHY OF MIND (1902 - 1992)
QIAN MU THE HISTORIAN (1895 - 1990)
FANG DONGMEI or A Philosophy of Comprehensive Harmony (1899 - 1977)
THE NINE SPHERES OF TANG JUNYI (1909 - 1978)
XU FUGUAN, SCHOLAR AND COLUMNIST (1903 - 1982)
MOU ZONGSAN AND KANT (1909 - 1995)
THE THIRD GENERATION OF NEW CONFUCIANS
THE NEW CONFUCIAN MOVEMENT IN MAINLAND CHINA
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE NEW CONFUCIAN MOVEMENT
AFTERWORD
BASIC GLOSSARY
CHINESE NAMES OF PERSONS
This book is dedicated to
my wife Joyce and daughter Elena, as a tribute to their unwavering patience.
ABBREVIATIONS OF THE MAIN SOURCES
PREFACE
It is my pleasure to write a preface for Dr. Bresciani’s new book on the New Confucian Movement from 1921 to the present time, covering three generations of scholars in their formative, developmental, and internationalization stages. It is an excellent introduction to the movement. It starts with a brief history and basic tenets of the New Confucians, follows with eleven individual cases of seminal thinkers of the first and second generations, and concludes with an overview of the third generation and current studies of the movement in Mainland China, while suggesting possible developments to be undertaken by the next generation.
I am not only struck by the fact that this is the first attempt by a Westerner to write an in-depth report on the subject, but by the even more remarkable fact that it is written for the love of the subject itself, not as an academic exercise. To be sure, Dr. Bresciani did receive excellent academic training by earning a Ph. D. degree in the area of Chinese Intellectual History from my alma mater National Taiwan University, he is an avid reader of Chinese literature, and speaks fluent Mandarin. But he has chosen to work in the business community for the last twenty years. It is an urge of his inner psyche that in his spare time he diligently collects materials on the subject and dwells upon the meaning and significance of the movement. His writings show a deep sympathetic understanding, and also offer critical judgments of his own.
Needless to say, I do not agree with everything he said in the book. As an example, I would never agree to put my teacher Thomé H. Fang in the second generation. Not only he was born in the nineteenth century, was older than He Lin, and had taught Tang Junyi, but at the Fourth East-West Philosophers’ conference held in Honolulu in 1964, he was openly acknowledged as the first generation, Tang as the second generation, Cheng Chung-ying and I as the third generation. In his long teaching career, after his retirement from National Taiwan University, he taught still another generation of scholars at Fu-jen University such as Vincent Shen Tsing-song and Fu Peirong. Of course Dr. Bresciani knows only too well that by his association with Xiong Shili and He Lin during the war years, he could not but belong in the first generation. It is for very different reasons that he finds it more convenient to discuss him along with the second generation of New Confucians in this book.
There has been a long tradition among the Catholics, especially the Jesuits since Matteo Ricci, to have a keen interest in Chinese thought. Brière’s Fifty Years of Chinese Philosophy is a case in point. I feel that Dr. Bresciani has advanced even beyond his predecessors. He appears to have even more confidence than the third generation in the future of the movement. I am not sure that Confucianism will return to the center from the periphery. But as I have observed, after the demise of institutional Confucianism, we can still observe the vitality of spiritual Confucianism, politicized Confucianism, and popular Confucianism. There is bound to be greater interest in the subject among Chinese themselves and abroad, as the world increasingly becomes a global village. In order to achieve a greater degree of harmony in the future, the Confucian tradition has much to offer to the new century and the new millennium. Western readers will find an excellent guide in Dr. Bresciani to lead them in the unfamiliar landscape of the world of spiritual Confucianism as portrayed in this book.
Liu Shuxian
Institute of Chinese Literature & Philosophy
Academia Sinica
Nankang, Taipei
Taiwan
FOREWORD BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ONLINE EDITION 2023
The book Reinventing Confucianism – The New Confucian Movement is presented here online for the first time, after the paper edition of 2001 by the Ricci Institute of Taipei.
During the last two decades, an enormous amount of research and publications have seen the light on the New Confucian Movement, and the Movement has been primarily developing again in China itself. For a panoramic view of the developments in the history of the movement during these two recent decades, one may read my The New Confucian Movement 2001-2021, published online by Passerino Editore.
The original book Reinventing Confucianism comes online in its entirety, without additions or revisions. Only the Bibliography is missing, because it was obviously obsolete. The only relevant novelty is that the book notes have been reduced in half, either by means of abbreviations (see the file Abbreviations of the Main Sources), or by incorporating them into the main text.
Umberto Bresciani
Taipei, July 1, 2023
INTRODUCTION
In 1744, philosopher G. B. Vico (1668-1744), musing upon the various regimes of the world in his times, wrote: “As for the emperor of the Chinese people, he rules by means of a meek religion and cultivates letters: he is the most humane and civilized.” ( Vico, G. B., La Scienza Nuova, Bari, Edizioni Laterza, 1974, p. 575.)
The meek religion characterized by love of learning was none other than Confucianism, at the time instrumentalized by the Qing rulers as a well-organized state religion and ideology. Historians have analyzed the reasons why this highly celebrated doctrine, which has been credited with triggering the Enlightenment in eighteenth-century Europe, was two centuries later disparaged in the West and rejected by its own people, and became the culprit and the scapegoat for all of China’s ills. It is a fact that by the 1950s Confucianism was condemned at home and pronounced dead in the West. It is therefore to a certain extent a surprise to discover that a renaissance of Confucianism has been taking shape in Chinese intellectual circles, and has been successful enough to go beyond its borders and to find an audience and some admirers even in the Western world.
This book deals with the New Confucians, a group of philosophers and scholars in the Chinese world born out of the May Fourth Movement of 1919, which in time has become itself an important cultural movement. At the beginning there were only a handful of intellectuals running against the tide of the time calling for Westernization and for the repudiation of tradition, while at the same time rejecting radical conservatism. Now they are numerous, and the movement has attracted worldwide attention. While since 1949 its representatives were active mainly outside the People’s Republic, today on the cultural scene in China itself New Confucianism is growing and spreading rapidly. It is easy to foresee that it will become the third force, challenging Marxism and Western Liberalism for the soul of China. A concise definition of the movement could be: “The New Confucian Movement was born in the 1920s. Its program has been to reclaim for Confucian thought a leading role in Chinese society, to rebuild the Confucian value system, and on the foundation of it to absorb and master, and finally amalgamate Western Learning, in order to pursue the modernization of Chinese culture and society.” (Fang, 453) In any case, since Confucianism has been largely misunderstood in the West, an acquaintance with this movement might be helpful to understand the past history of China, as well as present trends in Chinese intellectual circles, and expectedly future developments as well.
The name “New Confucians” or “New Confucianism” (in Chinese, Xiandai xin rujia or Dangdai xin rujia) has been used for some time already as a name for this new movement. It needs to be emphasized that this term specifically refers to the twentieth-century intellectual movement. Therefore, two philosophical movements are to be distinguished, namely: the “Neo-Confucians” in the Song, Ming, and Qing Dynasties, and the “New Confucians” in the twentieth century. Others refer to this new movement by the name Contemporary Neo-Confucianism (a literal rendering of the above mentioned Chinese names), which stresses the intimate connection between the two, since the New Confucians of today (or at least most of them), while engaged in philosophical dialogue with modern and contemporary Western ideas and perspectives, basically see themselves as situated in the mainstream of Song/Ming/Qing Neo-Confucianism.
There is a wide variety of opinions as to the definition and scope of this term New Confucian Movement. Simply stated, one can take the name in a broad sense, to include all those Chinese intellectuals who in this century have shown appreciation and support for the Confucian tradition of thought, or else in a narrow sense, and reserve this name for the school of philosophy expounded by Xiong Shili and his disciples, especially Mou Zongsan. A slightly subtler way of classifying is to separate three different groups of people to whom this name has been attributed: first, most widely, any intellectual in contemporary China who has been in some special way an advocate of Confucian values. Because of this, the well-known historian Qian Mu has often been classified as a New Confucian. Second, in the philosophical field, whoever has extolled some system of thought connected to the Confucian world-view. In this sense, Feng Youlan and He Lin are also considered to be New Confucians, at least for their works written before 1949. Third, in the narrowest sense, those thinkers, in the philosophical field, who advocate a strict adherence to the doctrine of mind-and-heart (which they see as the core doctrine of Neo-Confucianism), and preferentially lean toward the School of Mind of Wang Yangming. This includes Xiong Shili and his three illustrious disciples Tang Junyi, Xu Fuguan, and Mou Zongsan, and other important figures who shared the same basic beliefs, like Ma Yifu, Zhang Junmai, and He Lin. As a matter of fact, these names include the majority of the New Confucian leaders we will mention in this book. We are dealing with a well-defined school of thought, also named “moral idealism,” whose beliefs are listed in the famous Manifesto of 1958 (see ch. 2), and whose members consider themselves the legitimate and orthodox heirs to the Confucian tradition in our age. In recent years, very often the term New Confucians has been used to refer to this narrow circle of quite active, prolific, outspoken, and at times blamed as sectarian, philosophers and their disciples. Their towering leader in the last decades, Mou Zongsan, asserting that Western philosophy (metaphysics) has reached a dead-end, claimed that Chinese philosophy can offer the West a way out of its plight. Even more internationalized, the leaders of the third generation active in our days present Confucianism as a viable alternative ideology for the international human community in our pluralistic age and a valid remedy to the pressing problems faced by humankind in the post-modern world.
In the twentieth century the prevailing trend in China was that of striving for Westernization, so that by consequence their cultural tradition, of which Confucianism was the main bulk, was often considered obsolete and worthless. Given the enormous difference in cultural outlook between China and the West, the labors of the New Confucians to formulate the traditional Confucian doctrines under the light of Western patterns of thought amount to a reinventing of them. [1] At the same time, if seen from the side of their audience (Western people or Westernized Chinese), their work means a rediscovery of Confucianism, which was considered already dead and buried. Having attained a clear perception of their true self, today’s New Confucians are self-confident enough to willingly take part in philosophical debates on an international platform, and wish to contribute their point of view regarding human rights, ecology, women’s rights, racial and religious conflicts, and the other issues of our age.
My purpose in writing this book has been to introduce the movement to Western readers through a historical overview combined with individual biographies of its leaders. I take a broad view of the movement, and examine the eleven figures listed in the 1986 decision of the Chinese Government to include the New Confucian Movement among the seventy-five special subjects of national research. [2] I will start with a short survey of the historical development of the movement (ch. 1), and with a look at the basic tenets of these philosophers (ch. 2); then introduce the main representatives of the first generation, namely Liang Shuming, Ma Fu, Zhang Junmai, Xiong Shili, Feng Youlan, He Lin, and Qian Mu (ch. 3 through 9). The personalities introduced for the second generation are Fang Dongmei (ch. 10), Tang Junyi (ch. 11), Mou Zongsan (ch. 12), and Xu Fuguan (ch. 13). The presentation of each of the eleven figures starts from a short biography, proceeds to a summary exposition of the main thought, and ends with an assessment. However, in the case of Qian Mu, a historian, the presentation will be centered mainly on his research accomplishments; as for Liang Shuming, more of a social activist than a philosopher, and for Zhang Junmai, more of a political activist than a philosopher, discussion focuses slightly more on their busy and eventful lives and on their works. One chapter (ch. 14) will introduce some leading figures of the third generation, and another chapter (ch. 15) will describe the situation of the movement inside the People’s Republic of China. In the end, I have added some concluding remarks (ch. 16), even though I consider it too premature to pronounce a clear-cut assessment of the movement’s achievements, shortcomings, and predicted developments. A fourth generation is already taking shape. If the movement keeps spreading far and wide at today’s pace, it might become difficult later on to detect generational traits, while it may appear as more convenient to research the movement by topics (Confucian metaphysics, Confucianism and human rights, Confucianism and women’s issues, Confucianism and ecology, and so on), or by geographical areas.
Since Confucianism, a word not easily defined, involves a philosophy as well as a broad cultural tradition, at times in this book I will fluctuate between philosophical issues and other cultural matters. As it will be easily assumed from reading this book, and even from the short pages of the concluding chapter, the New Confucian Movement offers a wide range of topics for research both in history and in comparative philosophy. I could not possibly touch on all of them. In fact, from a broad anthropological perspective, the movement can be considered a typical example, and a macroscopic one, of the so-called process of acculturation. First there was Chinese culture, alone and self-sufficient. Then there came the impact of Western culture. The reaction was at times of rejection of foreign influence, for instance the Boxer Rebellion, and at other times, especially after 1919, of importation on a large scale. According to anthropological theories about acculturation, the next developmental step should be a synthesis of the two cultures. In my opinion, the New Confucian Movement is already following that logic: it has borrowed, and even appropriated, many important elements from Western culture; at the same time it is still authentically Confucian in its soul and content.
A renaissance of Confucianism should not be totally unexpected. If one observes the history of China in the twentieth century, one can easily discover that the rejection of Confucian tradition by the intellectuals of the May Fourth era was primarily an emotional stand. It was neither the fruit of a cool consideration of philosophical truths, nor the conclusion of a comparison of Western and Eastern values. Instead, it was an impetus of anger, coming especially from the younger generation, for the backwardness of China, of indignation for the inferiority of their country vis-à-vis Western countries, and even vis-à-vis Japan. In a more relaxed atmosphere, such as in a rich Hong Kong and a prospering Taiwan, and in recent years in a rapidly developing China, it is to be expected that some or most of the ground for that emotional rejection of Confucian culture should vanish, and leave space for a more serene appreciation by the Chinese themselves of their cultural past.
Any discourse about Confucianism will be understandable only to those who are aware of certain basic assumptions implied in a Confucian world-view, which include at least the following: Heaven ( tian) as the source of all things and Heaven’s Plan ( tianming) as creativity itself, the ceaseless generativity of the dao as the symbol of all that is or could be; the virtue of ren as the embodiment of creativity, itself manifested as a primordial concern for others, i.e. the dao made concrete in proper ethical and social concern; the mind-heart ( xin) which functions as the locus of the experiential unity of concern-consciousness within any living human being; nature ( xing) as the formal structure of human nature, including the cultivation of the mind-heart, so that it actively creates and participates in the cosmic generativity of the dao; study and inquiry ( daowen xue) needed in order to exhaust principle ( li) as a means for critical reason to adjudge the conformity of human conduct with the proper patterns of the dao; Li (rites) as ritual action or civility, as the methods and agreements human beings propose to deal with each other in a humane manner; qi (matter-energy) as the dynamic force from which all objects and events are manifested and to which they return; harmony ( he) or the highest good ( zhi shan) as the highest goal of all creation. [3]
It is necessary to keep in mind that Chinese philosophy has developed completely apart from the West, so that the terms we approximately translate as nature, substance, principle, and so forth, are not easy to explain, let alone to translate. Anyway, they are to be taken in their peculiar range of meanings, not in the usual Western meaning. Those people who are not familiar with these terms in the original language hopefully can find help by checking the glossary in the appendix. I have adopted the pinyin romanization system throughout, and I have tried to achieve total consistency, even regarding names and words quite familiar in Western languages, except maybe only Confucius and Mencius. I have used Beijing instead of Peking, Jiang Jieshi instead of Chiang Kai-shek, Guomindang instead of Kuomintang, Dao and Daoist instead of Tao and Taoist, and so forth. Unless otherwise indicated, translations of quotations from Chinese works are mine. For those interested in further readings on the subject, bibliographical indications are added at the end.
I am very grateful to all those who have helped with the publishing of this book, especially to Prof. Benoit Vermander of the Ricci Institute in Taipei for taking interest in it, and to Prof. Elise De Vido for her painstaking work of editing; to Prof. Michel Masson for kindly revising it and for encouraging me; to Prof. Liu Shuxian not only for thoroughly revising it, but also for kindly contributing a preface; to Prof. Alessandro Dell’Orto for revising it and and for invaluable side support (computer use and charts); and to all those who through the years have helped me gain insights into the world of thought of the New Confucians, especially my teachers He Yousen and Zhou Fumei at National Taiwan University, and also Mei Guang, Zhu Xiaohai, Yang Rubin, Zhong Caijun, and many others. This work however comes from my hand, and reveals the limits of my understanding. Any suggestions regarding mistakes and omissions will be extremely welcome.
Umberto Bresciani
Taipei, April 10, 2001
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT
The philosophical movement of the New Confucians is already eighty years old. It is quite natural that several authors have tried their hand at writing histories of it from different angles or perspectives. I find it rather simple and useful to stick to the three generations division adopted by Fang Keli, and originally suggested by Tu Weiming. (Fang/Li, 3-4). After a brief description of the historical background, I shall introduce the leaders and most relevant events of the first generation (1921-1949); then the leaders and major events of the second generation (1950-1979); then the main characteristics and leading figures of the third generation (after 1980), which is active today, mainly outside of China proper. In the end, I will mention the latest development of the movement inside the People’s Republic of China, where an astounding growth lets us realize that the fourth generation of leaders presumably will come not only from Taiwan, Hong Kong, or the United States, but also from there.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
By the middle of the nineteenth century the Chinese people were compelled by the historical course of events to confront Western culture. In the first decades after the Opium Wars, the slogan prevailing among the intellectual class was that promulgated by Zhang Zhidong: Chinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning as Tool ( zhongxue weiti, xixue wei yong). The idea behind it was: if China could master to a certain extent Western techniques, especially in the military field, everything would be fine, and China could keep intact its cultural heritage and way of life. Then came the year 1895, which shattered this illusion. In the previous year, China had declared war on Japan. Following China’s swift and humiliating defeat by the Japanese army (1894-1895), a crisis of cultural identity ensued which became acute at the end of the century. To say that China was in the midst of a cultural crisis was equivalent to saying that Confucianism, the backbone of Chinese traditional culture, was in a crisis. The most thoughtful among the Chinese intellectuals were attempting new interpretations of the Confucian tradition, for instance Kang Youwei (1858-1927), or advocating reformation of the Confucian doctrine, in their attempts to make Confucianism relevant to the needs of the time, and able to withstand the challenge coming from the West. [1]
As a matter of fact, the spiritual crisis affecting the intimate core of Chinese traditional culture was not solely due to the impact of Western culture. It had already been breeding for several decades or longer, since at least the middle of the eighteenth century. The reasons were complex, a major one being the harsh censorship of the emperors Yongzheng (1723-1736) and Qianlong (1736-1796), which had caused Confucian studies to become a fossilized and arid effort of philological research, thus stifling any development of creative thought. It might be argued that the enormous diffusion of drug users among the ruling class and the intellectuals in the nineteenth and early twentieth century had one of the main causes in such a spiritual crisis. The crisis in intellectual circles reached its climax in 1919 with the May Fourth Movement.
A figure, who prepared the ground for the birth of the New Confucian Movement, is Sun Zhongshan (or Sun Yat-sen, 1866-1925), the revolutionary who against all odds succeeded in overthrowing the Manchu Dynasty and the imperial regime in China. He was not a philosopher. However, he was well learned in Western culture, and his thought amalgamated Chinese tradition with Western ideas, thus opening new ways for China. He was able not only to accept Western thought, but also to criticize it from within his Chinese tradition of thought. Sun Zhongshan was a man who, while ready to borrow from the West, at the same time deeply respected traditional Chinese culture. He envisaged future Chinese culture as built on three pillars: democracy, ethics, and science. While democracy and science came from the West, for ethics he meant the traditional core of Confucian ethics (virtues such as loyalty, filial piety, and so on). He was also the one who highlighted certain traditional ideas, for instance the concept of daotong, or the equally important concept of Sage Within and King Without, which became keywords for the New Confucians. Therefore he can rightly be considered a forerunner, if not the main precursor and inspirer, of the New Confucian Movement.
THE FIRST GENERATION (1921-1949)
The first generation covers the beginning of the movement, and its forerunner Liang Shuming, as well as the following two decades, sometimes called the formative age because it witnessed various attempts at formulating systematic presentations of revived Confucian philosophy. One can rightly say that the May Fourth era, which in China signaled the triumph of iconoclastic anti-traditionalism, was also the time when the New Confucian Movement was born. The prestigious Beijing University, where Chen Duxiu was a professor and Hu Shi the head of the Literature Department, witnessed the birth of the New Confucian Movement. In those years, the University had some teachers whose names dominate the history of the New Confucian Movement: Liang Shuming, Xiong Shili, He Lin, and Qian Mu. Zhang Junmai was teaching at nearby Qing Hua University, Feng Youlan at Yanjing University, and from 1928 on at Qinghua University.
It was, therefore, in the aftermath of the May Fourth Movement, during the same years when the trend was to discard everything from the past and embrace one of the many Western doctrines, that a certain revival of Confucian ideals took place. The first to speak out was Liang Shuming, in defense of the Chinese philosophical heritage, which was for him worth preserving and on a par with Western and Indian cultural traditions. A few other intellectuals developed his idea and tried to fight against the iconoclastic trend. Thus the movement began, enriched by new contributions with the passing years and decades.
The Start of the New Confucian Movement.
The May Fourth Movement (1919) had a strong repercussion among the educated class in China. Suddenly, the whole current of cultural activity was going against the past, synonymous with going against Confucian tradition. The slogans in fashion at the time among the young intellectuals included the one by Hu Shi (“Down with Confucius & Sons!” Dadao kongjia dian), and that by Wu Zhihui (1865-1953):”All thread-bound books [2] should be discarded and thrown into the lavatory. ( Kong meng lao mo…fei ba ta diu zai maoceli, quoted in Luo: 12)
By consequence, the prevailing trend among the active intellectuals was to import Western culture as much and as quickly as possible. Right at that point, the leading scholar in China, Liang Qichao, returning from a research tour of Europe, wrote a book about what he had seen. Visiting Europe right after the end of the Great War of 1914-1918, he had found mostly ruins all over the continent, and came back very pessimistic about Western culture. Reading his reflections, many Chinese intellectuals who were dreaming of a total Westernization for their country, started to rethink the issue.
Under the influence of Liang Qichao, in 1921 a young teacher of Buddhist philosophy at Beijing University named Liang Shuming (1893-1988) wrote a book: Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies ( Dongxi wenhua ji qi zhexue, 1922), which had a strong impact, and polarized the intellectuals. The book caused a sensation and gave strong support to the conservative trend in Chinese cultural circles. Liang’s main point was: while the Western world preaches the extreme satisfaction of desires, and the civilization of India aims at the destruction of the self and of desires, China occupies a balanced position. The future world culture shall be Chinese, duly updated and modified. Liang appreciated Western values; but he saw Chinese culture as inestimable and immortal. He was for learning the new culture coming from the West, while preserving and extolling the Chinese spirit and view of life. Against those who advocated the importation of any of the current Western social systems, he was preaching that imposing foreign political and economic systems on an utterly different social context could not bring about the salvation of China. He held that China should be modernized by starting from a program of spiritual regeneration of the peasant masses. To this purpose he founded in the countryside of Shandong province the Institute for Rural Reconstruction, which became famous as a social experiment in the 1930s. After 1949, Liang remained in China. He is famous for his steadfast adherence to his ideals, despite enormous political pressure, which persisted until his death at a very old age, as well as standing up to and speaking face to face with Mao Zedong. Consequently, he has been admired and seen as a symbol by the New Confucians as the traditional upright Confucian scholar who never betrays the truth and dares to speak out even face to face with the tyrant. [3]
The Science vs. Metaphysics Debate
Zhang Junmai (1886-1969), a young philosophy instructor at Qinghua University, who had traveled throughout Europe by the side of Liang Qichao, gave a lecture in 1923, which kindled the Science vs. Metaphysics debate. The followers of radical scientism, a doctrine espoused by the leaders of the May Fourth Movement, both the liberal pragmatists like Hu Shi and the Marxists like Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, were considering science as a system of knowledge able to embrace the whole of reality, not only the laws of the physical universe. Science was believed to be able to prescribe even how people’s lives, and society itself, should work and develop. On the contrary, Zhang was saying that metaphysics was needed to serve as the basis for a true philosophy of life. He believed that the problems of the human soul, ethical and aesthetic problems, could never be solved by science. The debate went on for over a decade between the two camps, and eventually the supporters of science, being the wide majority, got the upper hand. Historically, the debate is extremely important, because it gave to the movement its metaphysical direction. As for Zhang himself, his life afterwards was occupied mainly by political commitments. He was an obstinate advocate of democracy and constitutional government. It was only late in his life that he wrote books on Confucian doctrine. Still, his personality is an important one in the New Confucian Movement, important especially for the definition of the political implications of Confucian doctrines.
The Formative Age
The first generation can be as well called “the formative age,” because in that period we find valuable attempts at a new modern formulation of the basic Confucian traditional philosophy. Apart from Ma Yifu (1883-1967), a hermit-type teacher, who eschewed any Western learning and was famous both for his deep knowledge of traditional Chinese thought and for the school he founded entirely dedicated to teaching the “doctrine of mind and nature,” there were some creative people who tried to build a bridge with Western thought from a Confucian platform. The three most outstanding were Xiong Shili, Feng Youlan and He Lin.
A teacher at Beijing University since 1922, in his youth Xiong Shili (1885-1968) studied Buddhism in depth under the famous master Ouyang Jingwu (1871-1943). Later on he applied himself intensely and tirelessly to a vital reformulation of the Confucian philosophical outlook. He stood against the trend of the literati followers of Hu Shi. For him, these people were continuing the most arid and fruitless intellectual activity typical of the Qing Dynasty times. According to him, in order to find a road to salvation for China, the intellectuals had first of all to rid themselves of the idea that the cultural resources of the country were exhausted, and that salvation needed to come from abroad. Xiong Shili is little known in the West. Similarly, his influence on politics and culture was slight in China during those years. However he is very important for our topic, because three dominating figures of the second generation of New Confucians, namely Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan, and Xu Fuguan, were his direct disciples. Xiong was the one who built a metaphysical system for the New Confucian Movement. The core of his system was ‘Substance and Function are not Two’ ( Ti yong bu er). He inherited the thought of the School of Wang Yangming, and mixed it with the basic concepts of the Book of Changes. Concerning the method of knowledge, he upheld the meta-rational method (intuition) as the only one suitable for the knowledge of the ultimate truth, i.e. of the substance, as opposed to reasoning, suitable only for scientific knowledge. In the end, Xiong still believed that Chinese Learning was superior to Western Learning, and advocated Chinese Learning (intellectual intuition, knowledge of [human] nature) as substance, and Western Learning (rationality, scientific knowledge) as function.
Feng Youlan (1895-1990) rose to dominate the philosophical scene in China from the 1930s on. He had studied in the United States, at Columbia University, from 1920 to 1923. Back in China he took up teaching. He is quite well known in the West also due to the fact that his History of Chinese Philosophy, written between 1930 and 1934, was translated very early into English. [4] The intellectual itinerary of Feng Youlan was quite tortuous, made up of assertions and afterthoughts. After the coming to power of Mao Zedong, Feng not only remained in China, but also immediately put himself at the service of the new regime. Because of this, the New Confucians saw him as a betrayer of their cause. [5]
The fact remains that his philosophical writings, especially those from the decade 1939-1949, are very important for a rethinking of Confucian philosophy in a contemporary way. Feng Youlan was a fervent patriot, and wanted to bring about a revival of Chinese philosophy by rebuilding the mainstream philosophical tradition of his country: the Confucianism of Zhu Xi (instead of that of Wang Yangming), in the light of Western philosophy, which he had learned in the United States. Therefore he wrote A New Philosophy of Principle ( Xin lixue). He declared this to be a continuation, not a repetition of Zhu Xi’s philosophy of principle. He proceeded in his work with profound logical subtlety, but later concluded that logic has its limitations: in the end one needs the help of the traditional Chinese method, intuition, which he called the negative way. Some people like to describe him as the pioneer of the New Confucian philosophy of principle (heir to Zhu Xi), instead of the New Confucian philosophy of mind, heir to Wang Yangming, and embraced by Xiong Shili, Zhang Junmai, He Lin, and others (Fang/Li I, 16), although such a simplistic classification easily gives rise to some perplexities, and some people oppose it.
Another important figure of the first generation is He Lin (1902-1992), who studied in the United States, and back in China was occupied with teaching and writing articles and books. As a philosopher, he was in favor of a mainly Neo-Hegelian system. In opposition to Feng’s A New Philosophy of Principle, he launched his “New Philosophy of Mind” ( xin xinxue), which was the product of a match between the thought of Hegel and the doctrine of the School of Wang Yangming. He stressed that China should strive for a deep understanding of Western culture, and should import, from the philosophical point of view, on a large scale from the West. He advocated a renewed and updated Confucian doctrine, and believed that Chinese culture had a future only if it was improved by absorbing contributions from the West. Specifically, Confucian philosophy should be perfected with the help of Western philosophy; the Confucian Doctrine of Rites should be perfected with the help of Western Christianity; and Confucian aesthetics should be perfected by combination with Western art.
Finally, for the first generation, we cannot overlook Qian Mu (1895-1990), a historian occupied with writing a history of China in defense of its cultural heritage. He was outspokenly against the New Culture Movement for he believed that its leaders were discarding and disparaging Chinese culture and tradition without having a true knowledge of it, and were advocating the importation of Western culture without having a true understanding of it. He can be defined as the representative in our age within the New Confucian Movement, neither of the Wang Yangming School, nor of the Zhu Xi School, but of the historical tradition in Confucianism.
Academies and Journals
In the period we are referring to, the years 1921-1949, three schools were established, rather important for the spread of the movement. They were not just called schools or universities; they instead were called academies ( shuyuan) , to keep the traditional name for the academies of the Ming-Qing dynasties, devoted to a thorough moral and doctrinal training in the Confucian doctrines. In 1939, Ma Yifu founded the Fuxing shuyuan (Restore Nature Academy) at Leshan, Sichuan. There he was occupied for six years teaching and printing books, and trained a group of disciples fervent toward Chinese culture and willing to spread the Confucian spirit. In 1940 Liang Shuming founded the Mianren shuyuan (Encourage Benevolence Academy) in Chongqing. In October 1940, Zhang Junmai founded the Minzu wenhua shuyuan (National Culture Academy) in Dali, Yunnan. Although the above names were thoroughly traditional, and the founders meant to revive an educational tradition of centuries past, these academies were partially inspired by modern methods of university education coming from the West, and stressed both enrichment of knowledge and moral training.
In those years several journals were also published for expounding Confucian doctrines in a new light, confronting the new times and the Westernizing tide of the age. [6] Even though these journals were short-lived and not very widespread, they were vital to the formation of the Movement. The main contributors to these journals were Qian Mu, Zhang Junmai, Feng Youlan, He Lin, et al., and many important ideas developed later in the books of the New Confucians appeared first in these journals. It is in one article, written by He Lin in August 1941 for Sixiang yu shidai, that the name Xin rujia (New Confucian) appears for the first time.
In 1948, Cheng Zhaoxiong, a disciple of Xiong Shili, upon the advice of Mou Zongsan, a young philosopher who would be at the forefront of the second generation, founded the Ehu Shuyuan (Goose Lake Academy) in the Goose Lake Temple ( Ehu Si), Chuanshan, Jiangxi, in the same place where in 1175 a historic debate of great importance in the development of Neo-Confucianism took place, a debate between Zhu Xi and Lu Xiangshan. At the same time they published the journal Ideal, History, Culture. The purpose of both the academy and the journal was to extol and spread “the spirit of Goose Lake” ( Ehu jingshen), and from that remote corner promote a renaissance of Neo-Confucianism throughout China. But it was the eve of Mao’s conquest of power in China, and the project was swept away by the abrupt political changes of the following year.
THE SECOND GENERATION (1950-1979)
The second generation, which can also be defined as “the development years,” covers the period from 1950 to 1979. After the start of the communist regime in China (1949), some of the leading intellectuals of the movement escaped abroad: Qian Mu and Tang Junyi, to Hong Kong; Mou Zongsan and Xu Fuguan to Taiwan; Zhang Junmai to India, and later to the United States. Due to the harsh control of and restrictions on intellectual life in China, the bases for the activity of the New Confucians were Hong Kong and Taiwan, with some people also active in the United States and in Singapore.
The refugees abroad kept working to realize their ideals. Qian Mu and Zhang Junmai, two pillars of the first generation, remained active for a long time. But the most outspoken and productive during this second period were three young disciples of Xiong Shili, namely Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan, and Xu Fuguan. In `958, the three, together with Zhang Junmai, issued their Manifesto, a clear statement of their beliefs, which contributed to their fame and drew attention to their philosophical movement. The New Asia College in Hong Kong was the propelling center of the New Confucian ideals, while Mou Zongsan taught and lectured in Taiwan and was attracting a group of devout disciples. Another figure connected to this era who is worth mentioning, for his special contribution, is Fang Dongmei, who taught in Taiwan from 1948 until his death in 1977.
The New Asia College
The year 1950 witnessed the founding in Hong Kong of the New Asia College. The founder was Qian Mu, in partnership with Tang Junyi and two other scholars. Later, in the 1960s and ‘70s Mou Zongsan and Xu Fuguan were also teaching there. For over two decades the College was the main bastion of research on and promotion of Chinese culture in the whole world. [7] Beside these scholars’ activity of training disciples, writing, and lecturing, one activity much worth remembering is that of the Seminars on Chinese Culture organized by Tang Junyi and held every Saturday at the New Asia Research Institute. Specialized scholars from all over the world were invited to offer these seminars, and the seminars enjoyed a high esteem for their non-partisan scholarly value. [8] The intellectuals affiliated with this activity were united into a Humanistic Research Association.
Journals
In 1949 in Hong Kong Xu Fuguan founded the journal Minzhu pinglun (Democratic Critique), and in 1951 Wang Dao founded the journal Rensheng (Life). The two journals’ bimonthly issues lasted until 1966 and 1968 respectively. The main contributors of articles were Qian Mu, Tang Junyi, Xu Fuguan, and Mou Zongsan. Many important works of these authors appeared first as articles in these journals. The two journals were nicknamed “the speaker’s platforms of the New Confucian Movement.” The Legein Monthly, published in Taiwan from 1975 on, later inherited such a role. Since this last journal was published by a group of disciples of Mou Zongsan, we will consider it as pertaining to the third generation and mention it again below.
The Manifesto of 1958
The major event relevant to our topic during the two decades from 1950 to 1970 was the appearance, in the January 1, 1958 issue of the journal Democratic Critique, of the “Manifesto to the World Concerning the Future of Chinese Culture .” [9] It consisted of over forty thousand words and was signed jointly by Zhang Junmai, Mou Zongsan, Tang Junyi, and Xu Fuguan. It was a clear statement of their outlook and purpose: what Chinese culture was exactly about and what the West should understand in order to strive for a more peaceful tomorrow in the world. The opening lines claimed that Chinese culture, in its core, had not been understood by the three kinds of people who had approached it, namely Christian missionaries, Sinologists, and students of present world politics. Chinese culture was like a sick man, ill but not yet dead. Instead, China could boast a long, very ancient and uninterrupted culture, and the secret of its longevity lay exactly in its unique spirit. Eastern and Western cultures should mutually respect each other as equal, and learn from each other. From such intercourse the world will obtain great benefit.
This document became the Magna Charta of the whole New Confucian Movement, expressing in a very concentrated form their beliefs, ideals, and plans. Far from obsolete, its contents are still seen as the main points of the Movement’s guiding doctrines.
The Leaders
In the period of years we are considering (1950-1979), the indefatigable leaders of the movement striving for a renaissance of Confucianism in our age were the three outstanding disciples of Xiong Shili, namely Tang Junyi (1909-1978), Xu Fuguan (1903-1982), and Mou Zongsan (1909-1995). Tang Junyi’s enthusiastic activity in promoting New Confucian ideals, in teaching, lecturing, and writing, have made him well known and admired in Chinese intellectual circles. His books mostly deal with problems of culture, and how to reconstruct Chinese culture. His main scholarly achievements are to be found in his painstaking study of history of Chinese philosophy - the six volumes of his “The Development of Ideas in Chinese Philosophy” ( Zhongguo zhexue yuanlun) published between 1967 and 1975 - and in his final philosophical synthesis Human Existence and the Worlds of the Mind ( Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie), published in 1977. [10]
Mou Zongsan was well trained in logic and had a life-long interest in it. He applied a rigorous philosophical analysis to the bulk of Chinese philosophical tradition, be it ancient Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, or Neo-Confucian. A disciple of Xiong Shili, he centered his own philosophical world on the idea of the moral self of Wang Yangming. He also studied Kant’s philosophy and labored at demonstrating that Chinese philosophy could meet the West in the thought of Kant, the Western Confucius. He argued that while Kant invoked intellectual intuition for knowing the noumenon (underlying substance), but regarded it as belonging only to God, the Chinese philosophical tradition had always been aware of the presence of such a capacity in human nature.
Zhang Junmai, in exile in the United States teaching at Berkeley, writing books and articles in English about Neo-Confucianism, and Xu Fuguan have been defined as two persons living between scholarship and politics. A general in the Guomindang Army for half of his life, Xu Fuguan later retired and dedicated himself entirely to the pursuit of learning and writing. A fighter with the pen, he relentlessly fought for Confucian ideals and democracy, and never stopped reacting to any evil he discovered in social and political life. He also wrote extensively on aesthetics. In the philosophical field his contribution lies mainly in several valuable works he wrote on Chinese intellectual history.
Another figure often associated with the leaders of the second generation is Fang Dongmei (1899-1977). A remarkable scholar, well versed in science, philosophy, and art, during the earlier part of his life, Fang was mostly interested in Western philosophy. It was later, during the War of Resistance against the Japanese invasion that he started to explore Chinese philosophy in depth. Actually, his date of birth should place him among the representatives of the first generation. In fact, he was a friend of Xiong Shili, and older than Feng Youlan or He Lin. We categorize him with the second generation just because it was during his twenty-five years of teaching (1948-1973) at National Taiwan University that he wrote his main works. Throughout his life, he remained a man of broad intellectual horizons, claiming allegiance to Confucius, but also to Daoism and Buddhism. He advocated a wisdom encompassing science, philosophy and art, and a philosophy amalgamating the best of Ancient Greece, Modern Europe, India, and China.
Such a complex personality could not at first glance be considered a champion of the New Confucian Movement. However, for many reasons he is included among the leaders of the Movement. First, after comparing the whole spectrum of human philosophical achievements, he still acknowledged that Confucianism gathered in itself the best of the various currents of thought, therefore it conveyed the true spirit of Chinese philosophy and culture, the essence of Chinese wisdom. Second, in his teaching he was particularly effective, because he started from teaching Western philosophy, then moved on to show Chinese accomplishments; thus he had a strong impact on his students. Third, he trained numerous disciples, some of whom have become leaders of the New Confucian Movement in the third generation. It is mainly due to his influence if, generally speaking, the representatives of the third generation are more broad-minded and more cosmopolitan in their views. He even took pains to write several books in English, in order to expound Chinese philosophy to a Western audience.
Mourning for Tang Junyi
The death of Tang Junyi in 1978 provoked many articles and comments on his personality, his achievements, and the merits and demerits of the New Confucian Movement, for which he had lived and worked. Over a hundred articles were written in one year, so that we can consider the year 1979 as a milestone in the history of the New Confucian Movement and a divide between the second generation and the third (Fang/Li, I, 35-37). It was emphasized that people like Tang Junyi had been so courageous and praiseworthy, but so lonely and ignored, and that it was time that such endeavors should be recognized, publicized, and extolled. [11] Lao Siguang, a philosopher at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, commented that the movement, and Tang himself who was one of its main leaders, had two defects. First, while they enthusiastically preached Confucian doctrines, they always talked about the positive side of Confucianism, but never dealt with the negative or problematic side. Second, they always stuck to theories and doctrines and seemed to be unable to find a way to implement their theories in practical life and historical reality.(Fang/li. I, 37)
THIRD GENERATION (1980 ON)
After 1980, the Movement underwent notable changes, most importantly its internationalization, and several important events have helped its development. The great leaders died: Zhang Junmai in 1969, Tang Junyi in 1978, Xu Fuguan in 1982, Mou Zongsan in April 1995, although he had retired from teaching several years earlier.
Important Events of The Last Two Decades
Among the events most relevant in the development of the Movement we can mention the following:
Ascent of the NIC. The ascent of the NIC (Newly Industrialized Countries) has been a new factor in the life of the New Confucian Movement. In fact, it was a long-held idea, supported by the sociological theories of Max Weber, that Confucianism was not suitable for the modern age, conducive neither to the development of science nor of democracy, nor of any industrial progress. However, the impressive economic and social achievements of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have destroyed that misconception. It was discovered that a quite evident common factor in these countries was a Confucian cultural heritage. Even though the subject was and still is open to debate, for the New Confucians it has been a boost to their self-confidence, and has also propelled Confucianism onto the international intellectual scene. In August 1982, in Taipei the journal China Forum organized a panel discussion on the topic Contemporary New Confucianism and the Modernization of China, which was a milestone for the movement, since its name, scope, representative figures, content, contributions and shortcomings, role and influence, historical significance, and expected future developments, were all debated, practically for the first time, with a stress on the negative or positive role of Confucianism in the modernization process. Taking part in the debate were some disciples of the New Confucian leaders as well as some liberal scholars critical of the movement. (Fang, 135) [12]
Spread of the Movement to Mainland China. Another important development during the last two decades has been the spread of the movement to Mainland China, during the new era of economic and cultural contacts with the outside world. Ostracized within China for thirty years during Mao Zedong’s rule, the movement began slowly to emerge in the 1980s, and then it became a general topic of study, so that today the names of the New Confucian leaders have become familiar names among intellectuals even in China. The various lecture tours of Tu Weiming, Cheng Zhongying, and others, have helped initiate again the movement in China. The great achievements in scholarship of the New Confucian leaders in Hong Kong and Taiwan enticed the intellectuals of the New China to take a look at their ancient heritage of thought from a more positive outlook; and the economic miracles in neighboring Confucian or semi-Confucian countries have provoked Chinese intellectuals to engage in lively debates and intense cultural soul-searching. To the dismay of the authorities, some of these scholars have even endorsed the anti-Marxist attitude dominant among the New Confucians. It is expected that some leaders of the fourth generation will come from the young philosophers now active in research in China, and that the New Confucians are bound to become a strong presence in Chinese intellectual debates, side by side with the Marxists and the Westernized Liberals.
The Legein Monthly. In the 1950s, Mou Zongsan at National Taiwan Normal University and Donghai University trained a group of young disciples, who in time pooled together their energies and organized several cultural activities, among them foremost the publication of a philosophical journal ( Legein Monthly). [13] This publication started in 1975 and continues to this day. This journal has become the propelling center, in the last decades, for the diffusion of New Confucian ideas, especially of the philosophical theories of their master Mou Zongsan. It has succeeded in this role to the New Asia College of Hong Kong. Several present leaders of the movement have come from this circle of disciples.
Congresses. The congress held in Singapore from August 29 to September 3, 1988, called “International Seminar on Confucianism,” was organized by the East Asia Philosophical Research Institute of Singapore, presided by Wu Deyao, an outstanding scholar originally from Taiwan, president of Singapore Nanyang University. It had as chairman Tu Weiming, as executive chairmen Yu Yingshi of Princeton University, Dai Lianzhang of Taiwan Normal University, Tang Yijie of Beijing University, and Liu Shuxian of Hong Kong Chinese University. Over forty people were invited to take part, all of them Chinese, coming from the four corners of the earth, half from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, the other half from the USA, Canada, Japan, and Singapore, including leaders of the Movement as well as outstanding scholars critical of the Movement. About twenty journalists, coming from Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, took part as observers. It was the first time, after forty years, that leading scholars from China had a face-to-face meeting with scholars from Taiwan and Hong Kong. The special importance of this congress is due even more to the fact that for several days a group of leading Chinese scholars from China and abroad lived together lecturing in turn and having discussions among themselves about Confucianism, including all the most pressing topics: its historical development, its present situation, its future prospects, its strong points and its weaknesses. It was undoubtedly a very fruitful exchange of ideas, which clarified many points, and made them aware of the relevance of Confucian ideas as well as of the widespread interest toward Confucianism. [14]Thus, the meeting helped the future development of New Confucianism, because it fostered momentum to it among Chinese cultured circles.
The Eastern Humanistic Research Foundation, established by the Legein circle of Mou’s disciples, organized in 1990 in Taipei the first congress of Contemporary Neo-Confucian Studies. It was decided that such a congress should be held every two years, and should have as its goals research on each leading figure of Contemporary Neo-Confucianism as well as on the development of Confucianism in contemporary society, and also comparative research on Confucianism and Western classical and contemporary philosophy. The congress of 1992, again in Taipei, was a milestone for the Movement. In fact, on that occasion a handful of scholars from Mainland China were scheduled to take part in the congress, and to deliver lectures. Although in the end they were unable to attend in person, their papers were read at the congress and were later included in the three-volume collection published after the congress. Not only did the successful scholarly meeting demonstrate the scale and maturity of the movement, but the participation of scholars from Mainland China was also a meaningful sign of future interaction. From that time on, it became evident that Chinese scholars from the mainland were actively contributing to the intellectual debate concerning issues of New Confucian thought. The third congress was held in Hong Kong (1994), which scholars from the mainland were able to attend in person. The fourth congress was once again held in Taipei, in December 1996. It was the first to be held after the death of Mou Zongsan, and also was attended by several scholars from Mainland China. The fifth congress was held in Jinan, Shandong, in September 1998. This time the choice of the place, Jinan, the native city of Mou Zongsan, was a tribute to this great man, who had done so much for the renaissance of Confucianism in our days. As it was customary for the last few congresses, beside Chinese scholars from all over the world, foreign scholars were invited to take part in a congress on a philosophical movement that professes to have gone international.
Demise of Mou Zongsan (1995). This has also been quite important for the movement; to such an extent that one scholar has gone as far as to define the passing away of Mou as the end of the New Confucian Movement as it was commonly known. [15] There is some truth to this. In the past very often Mou and his circle of disciples were considered as the embodiment of the movement, while it was known that other Confucian scholars were not always in agreement with Mou. After Mou, the movement is still thriving, but in a very varied way, no longer identified with apologetics and with a strict faith in the mind-heart daotong; instead, it is quite active in the international scholarly arena, striving to contribute the richness of its spiritual heritage to a globalized and pluralistic world. So, there might be some truth in saying that the “New Confucian Movement” has ended, and in its place there is a Confucian Movement on an international scale and not pivoted around one dominating leader.
The Third Generation of Leaders of The Movement
If one observes the representatives of the third generation of New Confucians, one would find that they are mostly disciples of Mou Zongsan, Tang Junyi, and Xu Fuguan (therefore the spiritual descendants of Xiong Shili), or else disciples of Qian Mu and Fang Dongmei. They, however, are different from their teachers and predecessors in several ways. First of all, they have studied abroad for long periods of time, and comparatively speaking have a more thorough knowledge of Western disciplines as well as a deeper understanding of Western philosophical theories. Secondly, they did not live through the traumatic vicissitudes of the first half-century in China, therefore they often are more objective, less partisan, utilizing a broader view in judging and criticizing people and doctrines. For instance, regarding the May Fourth Movement, they are more balanced, to the point of praising it for its job of “purging” the Confucian heritage. [16] Even toward Marxism, their judgment has become less drastic. While Mou Zongsan and several others totally and vehemently opposed it, these younger scholars differentiate between political Marxism, which they condemn, and Marxism as a social science, which they think has its value. One of the main leaders, Tu Weiming, advocates a dialogue between Confucianism, Marxism, Christianity, and Freudian psychoanalysis.
Many leading New Confucians have lived for long periods of time in the United States and have participated actively in cultural debates. They have demonstrated that the world today is searching for a kind humanism above and beyond racial and religious differences, and that this is exactly what Confucianism can offer. In the West, they have come to be viewed as the present living heirs of the Chinese cultural tradition. (Fang/Li, 44) At a point in history when the Western world has seen widespread dissatisfaction with the present, such as depressing ecological issues and the rapid transformation of society and of all aspects of life, the New Confucian Movement has gained world attention as part of the global search for new solutions among the ancient cultural traditions of the world. Therefore this period is also termed the age of the internationalization of the New Confucian Movement.
Outstanding Leaders of The Third Generation.
