When Confucius is Confusing the Confucians
(Or: "Questioning Confucius")
The figure of Confucius looms large in the annals of Chinese philosophy, revered as a thinker who provided a vision for ethical governance, personal virtue, and harmonious living. His emphasis on virtues like ren (humaneness) and li (ritual propriety) shaped the cultural and political landscape of China for centuries. However, as Confucius’ ideas were adopted, adapted, and institutionalized by successive generations, certain tensions and contradictions emerged within the Confucian tradition itself. These divergences raise questions: Did Confucius’ philosophy contribute to the confusion of later Confucians? Or were the complications rooted in the historical and political circumstances under which Confucianism evolved?
Confucius’ Original Vision
At the core of Confucius’ teachings is the idea of cultivating personal virtue. He famously stated, “The superior man is concerned with virtue; the small man is concerned with comfort” (Analects 4:11). Confucius placed the individual’s ethical development above material gain or societal status, believing that virtuous leaders would bring about harmonious societies. His concept of ren—a sense of humaneness and empathy—was meant to guide relationships at all levels, from family to the state.
Confucius emphasized that the practice of virtue should manifest in one’s conduct and interactions. In this light, he asserted that “to govern is to correct” (Analects 12:17), suggesting that ethical governance requires a foundation built on the moral integrity of its leaders. This idea places the responsibility for ethical living squarely on the shoulders of the individual and the leader, thus fostering an environment where mutual respect and understanding can thrive.
Moreover, Confucius believed that li, or ritual propriety, was crucial to maintaining social order and ethical conduct. As he stated, “If the people are led by laws and punished by penalties, they will try to avoid the punishment but have no sense of shame. If they are led by virtue and taught by example, they will have a sense of shame and become good” (Analects 2:3). Here, Confucius sought to create a moral framework in which societal harmony arises not from coercion but from shared ethical values and practices.
Confucian Divergences: Mencius vs. Xunzi
Confucianism’s development after Confucius’ death led to divergent interpretations of his ideas. The philosopher Mencius (372-289 BCE), often considered the second sage of Confucianism, emphasized the innate goodness of human nature. He argued that ren was a natural tendency within all people, positing that ethical cultivation was about bringing this inherent virtue to the surface. “The tendency of man’s nature to do good is like that of water to flow downward,” Mencius suggested, indicating that individuals are naturally inclined toward goodness unless external forces corrupt them (Mencius 6A:12).
In contrast, Xunzi (310-235 BCE), another Confucian scholar, contended that human nature was inherently selfish and needed to be regulated through strict rituals and moral education. He famously stated, “Man’s nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity,” indicating a belief that social order requires intentional moral cultivation rather than an assumption of inherent virtue (Xunzi 23). Xunzi’s position underscores a critical shift in Confucian thought, where the emphasis moves from an optimistic view of human nature to a more pragmatic approach centered on the necessity of societal structures to guide behavior.
These philosophical tensions represent early examples of how Confucianism evolved into a tradition with internal contradictions. Both Mencius and Xunzi claimed to be authentic followers of Confucius, yet their interpretations of his teachings were radically different. This divergence highlights the adaptability of Confucian ideas, which, while rooted in Confucius’ original philosophy, allow for varied interpretations that reflect the changing socio-political landscapes of their times.
Confucius Confounding the Confucians?
As Confucianism became institutionalized in later dynasties, particularly during the Han (206 BCE – 220 CE), new layers of meaning were added to Confucius’ teachings. Confucian scholars sought to reconcile the philosopher’s moral vision with the realities of governance, often leading to tensions between idealism and realpolitik. Confucius’ notion that leaders should govern through virtue rather than force was frequently at odds with the authoritarian tendencies of successive regimes.
Take, for example, the case of Confucian scholars during the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BCE). The Legalist philosophy of that era emphasized strict laws and harsh punishments, directly contradicting Confucius’ belief that people should be led by example and virtue. Later, during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han (141–87 BCE), Confucianism was integrated into state ideology but adapted to support centralized power and imperial authority. Confucians during this period often found themselves in a bind: How could they reconcile Confucius’ call for virtuous leadership with their roles in a highly hierarchical and, at times, oppressive system?
The Neo-Confucian revival during the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE) further complicated this relationship. Scholars like Zhou Dunyi and Zhang Zai sought to harmonize Confucian thought with Buddhist and Daoist ideas, often emphasizing metaphysical and cosmological frameworks. This shift marked a departure from the pragmatic focus of earlier Confucianism, leading some to question whether these interpretations still aligned with Confucius’ original ethical vision.
Confucius’ own ambiguity on certain matters also contributed to the confusion. While he advocated for li as a stabilizing force, he hinted at the limitations of ritual when not paired with genuine moral development. “A man who is not ren, what has he to do with rituals?” he asked in the Analects (3:3), suggesting that ritualistic behavior without true empathy was hollow. Thus, while Confucianism stressed the importance of maintaining social order through ritual, Confucius himself seemed wary of overly rigid adherence to ritual at the expense of personal virtue.
Self-Critique and the Confucian Legacy
It is not surprising to consider that Confucius himself might express concern over how his teachings have been interpreted by his adherents throughout history. The Analects reveal a thinker who championed the principles of ren and li not merely as rules to be followed but as a holistic approach to life that emphasizes moral integrity and social harmony. His commitment to the betterment of society is evident in his assertion, “The Master said, ‘If I have three days to live, I will spend them on learning. If I have two days, I will spend them on teaching. If I have only one day left, I will use it to guide others toward virtue’” (Analects 15:28).
Confucius emphasized the necessity of understanding the spirit behind the rituals and rules he prescribed. He warned against empty ritualism, stating, “If you do not understand the meaning of the rites, you are not fit to speak of them” (Analects 3:3). This caution suggests that mere adherence to ritual without an understanding of its underlying ethical purpose can lead to a distorted application of his philosophy.
Throughout Chinese history, the use of Confucian ideas to justify authoritarianism and social hierarchy often stands in stark contrast to the core tenets of his teachings. During periods such as the Han Dynasty, Confucianism was co-opted by the state to legitimize the ruling class and reinforce social stratification. Such interpretations likely diverged from what Confucius envisioned—a society governed by moral leaders who inspire through virtue rather than mere authority.
This historical co-opting of Confucian ideals may have led Confucius to question the integrity of his adherents. Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People’s Republic, also read far more Confucius, Mencius or Laozi as he did of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
And as Mao pointed out, Confucius’ teachings were sometimes employed to justify social inequities and inhibit revolutionary change. Mao criticized the feudal elements in Confucianism, stating that it was “not the ancient sages’ teaching but the slave-owners’ views” (Mao 1958).
Equating with the existence that China hindered its progress, Mao condemned Confucius for his emphasis on hierarchy and tradition, arguing that his teachings perpetuated class inequalities and societal stagnation. Mao’s revolutionary ideology sought to dismantle the Confucian social order, promoting egalitarian principles instead. He famously asserted, “It is right to rebel against reactionaries,” positioning himself in direct opposition to Confucian ideals of obedience and respect for authority.
In doing so, these responses, or should say upon examining the limitations of Confucius’ teachings shows a distanced Confucius’ vision of a harmonious society rooted in mutual respect and ethical leadership from the reality of political oppression and societal division- and also may see that even his followers struggled to reconcile their philosophical inheritance with the demands of contemporary society. Why was Mao criticized Confucius and glorify Legalists like Han Feizi?
Moreover, as Liang Shuming (1893-1988), a prominent Confucian scholar, argued, the rigidity and elitism embedded in some interpretations of Confucianism could lead to a form of intellectual imperialism that alienated the masses from Confucian thought (Liang, China’s Spiritual Crisis). This critique suggests that while Confucianism has much to offer in terms of moral guidance, its institutionalization can sometimes produce exclusionary effects that Confucius himself may have disapproved of.
The Critique of Confucius by Confucians
Confucius’ ideas were not immune to criticism even from those within the Confucian tradition. Later Confucian scholars often debated and reinterpreted his teachings in ways that highlighted their complexities and limitations. For instance, Zhou Dunyi (1017–1073 CE), a prominent Neo-Confucian philosopher, emphasized the importance of innate goodness, echoing Mencius but critiquing the rigidity of traditional Confucian rituals. Zhou argued that rituals should not be mere formalities; they must express the inner moral sentiments of individuals (Zhou, Taiji Tushuo).
Moreover, Wang Yangming (1472–1529 CE) introduced the idea of “knowledge and action as one,” challenging the emphasis on ritualized learning and suggesting that true understanding comes from personal experience and introspection. This philosophical evolution reflected an internal critique within Confucianism, as scholars began to question the applicability of Confucian ideals to their contemporary contexts.
Even contemporary Confucians like Tu Weiming have argued for a reexamination of Confucian values to align with modern sensibilities, including gender equality and individual rights. In Confucianism in an Age of Globalization, Tu advocates for a reinterpretation of Confucianism that harmonizes traditional ethical values with contemporary ethical frameworks, thereby addressing critiques regarding its perceived antiquity and patriarchal underpinnings (Tu, 2011).
Conclusion
The legacy of Confucius is undeniably complex. His teachings laid the groundwork for a tradition that has profoundly influenced Chinese society and thought, yet the subsequent interpretations and adaptations of his ideas have often led to confusion and contradictions. Confucius’ emphasis on personal virtue and ethical leadership has at times been overshadowed by authoritarian interpretations that arose in response to the political realities of later dynasties.
As both Confucians and non-Confucians engage with his teachings, the necessity of critical self-examination within the Confucian tradition remains paramount. Confucius’ own cautions against rigid adherence to ritual without genuine ethical commitment echo through the centuries, urging his followers to uphold the spirit of his teachings rather than becoming entangled in dogmatic interpretations.
Ultimately, the question remains: How can we reconcile Confucius’ vision of a moral society with the historical realities of Confucianism’s application? The answer lies in a commitment to continuous reflection, adaptation, and the pursuit of genuine virtue in both individual and collective actions, a challenge that resonates as much today as it did in Confucius’ time.
References
Confucius. Analects. Translated by Arthur Waley. New York: Random House, 1938.
Liang, Shuming. China’s Spiritual Crisis: The Need for Cultural Reconstruction. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1989.
Mao Zedong. “On the Question of Art and Literature.” In Selected Works of Mao Zedong, vol. 3. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1958.
Mao Zedong. “On the Cultural Revolution.” In Mao Zedong: Selected Works, vol. VI
Tu, Weiming. Confucianism in an Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Xunzi. Xunzi: The Complete Text. Translated by Eric L. Hutton. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.