This represents my point of view and not the general view of Chinese or specifically the Filipino Chinese community. I wrote this piece as a comment to Professor Cruz’s BusinessWorld column dated October 3. His column is about the succession stability among Chinese. Specifically, he was referring to an article written by some prominent American management thinkers on the Chinese practice of succession by primogeniture (succession through the eldest male). The conclusion of that study tends to reinforce the view of the stable nature of Chinese succession.
My first reaction upon reading your column the other day (October 3) is that it is an idealization and partially true. It is an idealization because history and reality showed that it doesn’t happen that way. In fact, it is dynamic. It is partial because the authors used the “Imperial” version of Confucian philosophy, the version that stresses obedience and submission. It is a feudal philosophy because it was born out of the feudal environment. Confucian philosophy is all about maintaining social and familial harmony through understanding and acceptance of one’s station in the hierarchy of things in the universe. For every station in the hierarchy, there is a corresponding duties and obligations as well as rights. Duties include taking care and defending the ones underneath you like subordinates, brothers, wife, son, students, servants etc; being true, loyal, and helpful to your peers like friends; and lastly being obedient, loyal, respectful, submissive, and generally defer to the decision of your superiors like elders, teachers, parents, rulers, etc. With duty comes rights, namely the right to demand protection, guidance, and care from your superiors; the right to demand loyalty and support from your friends and lastly, the right to demand loyalty, submission, and respect from your subordinate. However, the hierarchy is by no means rigid or static. As a matter of fact, it is quite fluid. There will come a time when a son becomes the father, or a junior member of society would become an elder, or a student becoming a master. And each rise in station would mean a corresponding change in their duty. This is the “imperial – feudalistic” version of Confucianism, a partial version that is being stressed and systematically preached throughout the centuries. As you can see, the “Imperial” Confucian philosophy is pro – establishment, pro – hierarchy, pro – order. And it is this version that provides stability to succession. However, Confucian philosophy is not just that. It is not about static and rigid hierarchy. For within the philosophy lies the genius of it’s first master, a thought that is greatly expounded upon by Mencius, another master. According to Mencius, disruption can happen in this “static” hierarchy once there is a dereliction of duty, which inevitably tramples upon another person’s rights. The aggrieved party would have the right to “overthrow” or “remove” the guilty party if not just simply severe the bond that binds them. This can be seen in Mencius’ reply to the prince of Chi when the latter posed the question, “what if a father is not a father (as in not performing the duty of a father), a son is not a son, a king is not a king, and a servant is not a servant”. To which Mencius replied, “I heard of a tyrant named Chou (the last king of the Shang dynasty) and not a king named Chou. A tyrant should be overthrown and killed but not a king”. In Mencius’ view, ones station’s in the hierarchy is maintained as long as he “does” his duty. If a person doesn’t perform his duty, he doesn’t “deserve” the appellation and the status accorded with it, i.e., the bond is severed. In addition to that, there are two concepts in Confucianism that contravenes with the hierarchal nature of it’s philosophy. The first one is ren or benevolence, and the second is Yi or righteousness. Benevolence or Ren is about caring for somebody without the superficiality of the rigid rituals and customs of respect and reverence. Righteousness or Yi is about doing what is right even if such were not his duty to perform. Furthermore, anybody can exercise this virtue and is not limited by his station in the hierarchy. One doesn’t have to be rich and powerful to be benevolent or righteous. It is these “exclusion” clauses in Confucian philosophy that is more often used in history when a father “disinherit” the eldest son (in old times) or pass over him (modern times) in favor of a younger and capable son if the eldest son doesn’t perform his “duty”. It is also due to these “exclusion” clauses that if the successor doesn’t perform his new “duty”, his siblings has the right to “overthrow” the eldest son’s leadership. However, it is also here where the weakness of the philosophy lies. It doesn’t promote meritocracy. What if the leader performed his duty but is not exceptional? There would be no justification in removing him from his place. Therefore, Confucian philosophy tends to promote stability in succession but doesn’t provide incentive for exceptional performance for there is no “real” competition.
P.S. There is a paper in Beijing written by a present day historian entitled, “Confucianism, the ultra stability factor in the imperial Chinese society.” It is written in Chinese by the way. I had a critique of such thesis written by a Taiwanese historian.
My first reaction upon reading your column the other day (October 3) is that it is an idealization and partially true. It is an idealization because history and reality showed that it doesn’t happen that way. In fact, it is dynamic. It is partial because the authors used the “Imperial” version of Confucian philosophy, the version that stresses obedience and submission. It is a feudal philosophy because it was born out of the feudal environment. Confucian philosophy is all about maintaining social and familial harmony through understanding and acceptance of one’s station in the hierarchy of things in the universe. For every station in the hierarchy, there is a corresponding duties and obligations as well as rights. Duties include taking care and defending the ones underneath you like subordinates, brothers, wife, son, students, servants etc; being true, loyal, and helpful to your peers like friends; and lastly being obedient, loyal, respectful, submissive, and generally defer to the decision of your superiors like elders, teachers, parents, rulers, etc. With duty comes rights, namely the right to demand protection, guidance, and care from your superiors; the right to demand loyalty and support from your friends and lastly, the right to demand loyalty, submission, and respect from your subordinate. However, the hierarchy is by no means rigid or static. As a matter of fact, it is quite fluid. There will come a time when a son becomes the father, or a junior member of society would become an elder, or a student becoming a master. And each rise in station would mean a corresponding change in their duty. This is the “imperial – feudalistic” version of Confucianism, a partial version that is being stressed and systematically preached throughout the centuries. As you can see, the “Imperial” Confucian philosophy is pro – establishment, pro – hierarchy, pro – order. And it is this version that provides stability to succession. However, Confucian philosophy is not just that. It is not about static and rigid hierarchy. For within the philosophy lies the genius of it’s first master, a thought that is greatly expounded upon by Mencius, another master. According to Mencius, disruption can happen in this “static” hierarchy once there is a dereliction of duty, which inevitably tramples upon another person’s rights. The aggrieved party would have the right to “overthrow” or “remove” the guilty party if not just simply severe the bond that binds them. This can be seen in Mencius’ reply to the prince of Chi when the latter posed the question, “what if a father is not a father (as in not performing the duty of a father), a son is not a son, a king is not a king, and a servant is not a servant”. To which Mencius replied, “I heard of a tyrant named Chou (the last king of the Shang dynasty) and not a king named Chou. A tyrant should be overthrown and killed but not a king”. In Mencius’ view, ones station’s in the hierarchy is maintained as long as he “does” his duty. If a person doesn’t perform his duty, he doesn’t “deserve” the appellation and the status accorded with it, i.e., the bond is severed. In addition to that, there are two concepts in Confucianism that contravenes with the hierarchal nature of it’s philosophy. The first one is ren or benevolence, and the second is Yi or righteousness. Benevolence or Ren is about caring for somebody without the superficiality of the rigid rituals and customs of respect and reverence. Righteousness or Yi is about doing what is right even if such were not his duty to perform. Furthermore, anybody can exercise this virtue and is not limited by his station in the hierarchy. One doesn’t have to be rich and powerful to be benevolent or righteous. It is these “exclusion” clauses in Confucian philosophy that is more often used in history when a father “disinherit” the eldest son (in old times) or pass over him (modern times) in favor of a younger and capable son if the eldest son doesn’t perform his “duty”. It is also due to these “exclusion” clauses that if the successor doesn’t perform his new “duty”, his siblings has the right to “overthrow” the eldest son’s leadership. However, it is also here where the weakness of the philosophy lies. It doesn’t promote meritocracy. What if the leader performed his duty but is not exceptional? There would be no justification in removing him from his place. Therefore, Confucian philosophy tends to promote stability in succession but doesn’t provide incentive for exceptional performance for there is no “real” competition.
P.S. There is a paper in Beijing written by a present day historian entitled, “Confucianism, the ultra stability factor in the imperial Chinese society.” It is written in Chinese by the way. I had a critique of such thesis written by a Taiwanese historian.
No comments:
Post a Comment