AWAKENED RADICALISM, EGALITARIANISM, NATIONALISM

In the beginning of Henrietta Harrison’s biography of the scholar Liu Dapeng, she recounts the story of the Daoist immortal Lu Dongbin, connecting his ascension into Heaven with the conduct of Liu. “When [Liu] calls himself The Man Awakened From Dreams, Liu is expressing his exclusion from political power, but he is also pointing up for us both the fragility and the complexity of the Confucian moral order” (Harrison 19-20). The scholar’s life, in Harrison’s view, is a representation of the status of Confucianism in terms of ethics and politics. How does this model interact with the world at large? With some discussion (1) on creating an overview of the work, and then elaborating upon the status of the identity of the Awakened Liu Dapeng in regards to the three ethical standards of Confucianism: (2) ritual, (3) filial piety, and (4) benevolence. One can become elucidated on exactly what it means to be Awakened in turn of the century’s China.

Within the years comprising the Republican era, Sinologists have a great deal of material that can potentially be utilized. In particular between 1899 and 1919, events relevant for discussion are numerous and complex, even if the period can be wholly comprehended as an interregnum era. For Harrison and many scholars, this means that the fundamental key to understanding society is to find (A) what were the original cultural norms, (B) what were the norms to be adopted, and (C) how the society went from one norm to the other. Liu, to Harrison, seems to be a figure within the latter category, an anachronism naturally occurring as China undergoes cultural transformation. Harrison’s main goal for writing an analysis of Liu’s journal is to attempt to find the reconciliation of Confucianism and the lessons provided by Western imperialism. Her voice in doing so analyzed the culture with a balance of universality and specific context, to teach the reader in both [1]. In regards to the actual content of the book, Harrison writes in a fashion unusual for most biographies, focusing on particular themes rather than drawing upon events in chronological order [2]. As a whole, the book consists of an amalgamate of philosophical themes in the context of tumultuous history, in an attempt to explain the changes in ideology during the turn of the century.

For one to talk about change pursued by a society, it is logical to start by discussing Liu’s encounter with what initially seems to be the most anachronistic. Ritual, or li (禮) refers historically to the orthodox rites of a Confucian empire and household, such as the veneration of ancestors or the commemoration of high civil status. Scholars have extrapolated from the works of Confucius that the term refers more so to the conduct people follow in social engagements and in viewing relationships [3]. In the view of Liu Dapeng and scholars of political ethics, this was defined specifically as how the state mandated individual relationships. Ethics is defined by the Classics (venerated as items of the moral precedence of the Sage Kings [Harrison 27]) and the corresponding education system designed to normalize the tenets. The nature of rite in this scope is to exist as an arm of the legitimate regime, penetrating into the populace by normalizing their administrative leaders.

With the breakdown of the civil bureaucracy generally through the “New Policy” reforms and epitomized by the 1905 end to the civil service examination, such normalization became separated from education and examination systems (Zarrow 28-30)[4]. The penetrability of the populace was obscured: no longer could elites act as the model for virtuous behavior. To this end, the abandonment of the old normalization process had geographical dimensions. “Even as Confucian morality was detached from the state and condemned as feudal,” comments Harrison, “it came to be associated with rural areas” (Harrison 80). This lack of penetration and poverty within the inland areas can be a sign of a decline in the effectiveness of the bureaucrats, at this time facing an ethical crisis, if not a professional one.

Inland-dwelling Liu Dapeng was a model of such a breakdown of the stability of the civil service system. Him and the vast majority of his friends suffered an end to all prospects of social mobility and salary. (Harrison 87) Yet, he shows persistence in retaining a Confucian ideology in political matters, as few of his compatriots did. With this disintegration of relationship between precedence and the advocated politics as well as the monarchy-gentry bond, radical protestation could be the only result (Zarrow 47). If a government lacked the ability to instill its values within the people, let alone the ability to find suitable bureaucrats, the appropriate course of action would be to advocate for increased government reciprocity (minben, [Zarrow 15]). Led in part by Kang Youwei, the radicals pursued a unification between emperor and people to ameliorate this lack of accommodation (Zarrow 14).

Accordingly, Liu Dapeng can be found to be a voice within this greater movement. Having had his only legitimate road to political power dismantled to favor Western learning, he birthed an Awakened ego. He denied the world of institutions and political position (destroyed with the dissolution of the old teaching) and accepted his vision of an inner landscape shaped by Confucian values(Harrison 45) [5]. In doing so, Not only was he part of a historical practice of avoiding civil service in an immoral world [6], but he also joined the ranks of a growing population of disaffected intellectuals. His voice remained unique, his philosophy differentiated from that of Kang’s [7]. What could be the possible ramifications of such a rapid alienation of scholars, and what is to be made of their diverse opinions? These questions can be appropriately answered given an additional Confucian theme.

Filial piety, or xiao (孝), is denoted by the veneration of ancestors. Like li, one can dig deeper to find a more complex significance. To respect one’s ancestors is to correspondingly respect one’s position with society. In this sense, filial piety can refer to the relationship of the individual with the leader, a piety not simply limited to that of family members, but to the entire dynasty. In total, the tenet can be said to be a guideline as to who is superior and who is inferior in the social hierarchy [8].

To Liu, filial piety was of both practical and moral importance. He was completely dependent on his parents’ funds, and his schooling made him an advocate of it philosophically above all else, even using it as a judge of an individual’s moral quality (Harrison 57). Appropriately, the philosophy of egalitarianism, of throwing away filial piety, shocked and angered Liu to no end. He saw this “rejection not only of the natural affection between parent and child, but also of the whole moral order of the state, which he saw as structured around these natural bonds” (Harrison 79). This put him naturally at odds with the revolutionary movement that was gaining momentum in Tianjin and Chinese urban centers from 1900 to 1911 (Zarrow 50).

The goal of revolution fundamentally called for an immediate reversal of the status quo. Such a goal would not be stopped by friction between “conservative fathers and radical sons”: the scope of such resistance to the traditional familial composition was rooted in its link to the polity of society as a harmonious hierarchy(Zarrow 49) [9]. If the structure of the family reflected the structure of a society that was clearly anemic in the face of Social Darwinism, then it was essential for both to be reformed. The call for equality of family, and opportunity of political voice was issued by urban intellectuals, yet the fact remained that the perception of Chinese society’s weakness was a function of “an international hierarchy dominated by race and nation” (Zarrow 44).

Such an atmosphere of paradoxes and confusion is what characterized the era before the revolution. With the path to bureaucratic profession gone, and the identities within the family being threatened, Liu became increasingly bitter of the new norms in respect to education and administration. Fellow scholar officials everywhere also lost their identities and vocation; the antipathy turned towards the rulers and their reforms. Despite this anger focused on progressive reform movements, Liu embraced notions of popular sovereignty, and he predicted backlash with the connection of the state’s harmful actions and its perceived legitimacy (Harrison 97-98). When the revolution did come in 1911 and when Liu was appointed as a representative for the county assembly, he was in a greater state of vertigo. He voted for a constitutional monarchy with Yuan Shikai as head with the logic that it would restore the dynasty; instead, he was plagued with nightmares of a loyalist—having elected an emperor who was illegitimate (Harrison 100-101).

Toppling filial piety was the fall of yet another stratified hierarchy that was indicative of the revolutionary need to reshape the nature of status. Yet, when a semblance of the old order reappeared, not even Liu had a clue whether it was legitimate, let alone how to reconcile the notion of the Republic with the former dynasty. Liu’s Awakened self persisted, despite seeing dangerous portents everywhere: the fall of the moral path of power and the demonstration of this with the abolition of the reinforcing educational system. Yet, with the help of the Classic of Changes, Liu was confident that such chaos would not threaten the existence of the traditional moral order, given a bit of stability (Harrison 104-106). In the conception of Liu’s enlightened self was the very nature of non-participation and failure in political circles. Although disturbed by the political entropy and decline of morality in his environment, The Man Awakened remained confident that the essence of morality—sincerity and respect—would never die (Harrison 19). In such a statement lies the true value of the standard of goodness.

Benevolence, or ren (仁), is probably the most complex of the three basic conducts, yet was the least discussed by Confucius. To define it most simply is to compare it to li: whereas “ritual” is how one conducts oneself in the presence of others, “benevolence” is how a one conducts oneself beyond social interactions. Transcending relational goodness, it is personal moral fiber, latent in the very character of ren [10].

The most profound tenet of the Confucian ethic instilled in Liu, transcending even his affairs in the public realm, was his undying loyalty, manifesting in a sort of an air of self-righteousness. In all affairs, he was not one to compromise his principles, loyalty included. He was loyal to the Qing, calling the republic illegitimate; he was loyal to the old calendar, old style of education, and even took Zeng Guofan’s suggestion to keep a diary until his death; he was stubbornly a conservative when it was virtually a crime to be one (Harrison 11, 93, 97-98). This abidance to the old norms seemed to be in direct opposition to the chaos of the times. Perhaps his morality was the only thing keeping him sane: his strict abidance to his enlightened world of Confucianism was solace in a world of overwhelming change.

Morality of type of personal morality represented by ren manifested historically with the building of rhetoric to support nationalism, particular on the part of Liang Qichao. Through “The New Citizen” (1903), he developed the ideals of popular sovereignty as epitomized by the term guomin. Reciprocity in government, he believed, was not simply through representative government and an active participatory citizenry, but also through the mutual reinforcement of “public” and “private” morality. Liang posited that the solution to the fragmentation of society, characterized by the sheer ideological chaos of the era, was to use all of society’s tools (namely education) to create a coincidence between civic interest and self-interest. Achievement of such a connection was possibler by combining the boosting of group cohesion with personal cultivation (Zarrow 63-64). The answer to the problem posed by imperialism was finally being answered: to beat a cohesive nation-state, the victim must become one. In this manner ren as a personal trait and enforced by ritual conduct, became more inclusive to the group: moral fiber fundamentally transformed into something less contextually based, and more of a universal quality, not bound by the regime in which it was vested [11]. Personal freedom (especially from the dynasty) to the extent of allowing self-determinism to Liang was essential for popular sovereignty. “A nation goes into decline when its people do not know the difference between nation and the dynasty” (Zarrow 65).

While Liu Dapeng was quite adaptable in terms of adopting a commercial lifestyle amidst the failed opportunities as a politico, he lacked the capacity to think of statecraft in a progressive manner as per Liang Qichao. Although he believed in the importance of personal freedoms, he was unable to think of himself as anything but a Qing loyalist attempting to express his views in an illegitimate institution (Harrison 105). In political affairs, this sort of strict personal code acted as a hindrance to his political campaigning when he refused to take part in any nepotism, in part due to his declining wealth. While Liu Dapeng was truly caring for his state to the point of opposing Japanese incursions (Harrison 105), he had no particular identity within the new dynasty (being a Qing loyalist) and his code of ethics interfered with the type of individual freedoms advocated by Liang necessary to express himself politically [12].

To Liu Dapeng, it may be that ren was manifested in his Awakened self: it was, after all, the moral world driving his actions [13]. His enlightened character dominated his private thoughts and poetry, not his public self striving to adapt to the changing conditions of the Republic. This aspect of his personality is what he was determined to cultivate, even as it made little sense to those around him (Harrison 158). His code of conduct impeded any political achievement or welfare he could have brought to his family, yet he staunchly refused to compromise his Confucian view of the world. Even in his commercial dealings, he remained respectful and kept his integrity uncompromised to the point of mediating familial business crises at his own expense (Harrison 123). Thus, in a significant way, Confucian morality had not died off in revolution, but thrived in the minds of conservatives such as Liu Dapeng, even as they negotiated modern circumstances.

Having discussed (1) the overview of Harrison’s work along with the central Confucian tenets of (2) li (3) xiao and (4) ren, some thoughtful conclusions can be made. First, Liu Dapeng can be seen as a product of the state’s eventual breakdown of ritual in the form of the education system, having lost his ability to pursue a meaningful political career with these New Reforms. This can be seen as the birth of The Man Who Awakened From Dreams, linked intrinsically with the decline of self-cultivation as the focus of the civil examination system. He is thus part of the demography of the Radical Confucians, and was in favor for a few of their policies (such as the populace having a role in the state of the dynasty) but as a Qing loyalist was far from ascribing to their belief of revolution. Secondly, Liu can be seen as an ardent supporter of xiao, putting him at odds with the radical youth that advocated for equality within family circles. To this end, he viewed the relationships within a “harmonious hierarchy” as necessary for stability. Yet, he tended to side with the reformists in regards to their views on Social Darwinism, believing that a reformation would be necessary to overcome China’s predators. For Liu, reforms were to be on a moral level aimed at eliminating the villains in government, as opposed to the ideological changes that more progressive scholars suggested. Finally, in terms of ren, it can be argued that Liu’s enlightened ego was the basis of his benevolence. Rather than explicitly falling into the thinking of nationalists such as Liang Qichao, his thinking tended to stray into more conservative lines, advocating for the cultivation of self at the top (with bureaucrats and the court) to reform the state, rather than the development of a nation that transcended dynastic cycles and depended on the common people.

The ultimate vision that Liu can instill into historians in regards to the period of reconciliation between Eastern and Western ideology is one of a diversity that remains very difficult to classify. Liu Dapeng and his fellow conservative scholars might have held onto their Awakened view of the world, but facing a world of iconoclasm they adapted selected portions of their philosophy to fit the times. The journey into the next century with China was not one taken solely by the state, nor specified groups of intellectuals. Nay, it was a difficult set of changes that every thinker had to surmount. In doing so, scholars such as Liu found that while a measure of their dreams had to remain unfulfilled, they could continue to cherish their traditions and perceptions of society to the extent of its present existence.

[1] Universality being traits shared by multiple cultures. Specific context being traits held solely by China, sometimes in regards to the historical precedence and sometimes within the period alone. I think Sinologists in general attempt to extrapolate this pair of scopes in a corresponding way, as a method of commenting on human society at large and as a way of understanding China alone. This to a small extent is not explicit, but it seems to be the implicit goal of historians to find relevancy in all of its manifestations.

[2] Unusual in the scope of how the average biography (such as Bergere’s on Sun Yatsen) is organized, but only moderately in the context of the interpretation of Chinese history, where scholars like Timothy Brook (“The Confusions of Pleasure”) rely on thematic organization for better comprehension. It is important to note that although I say that the focus is on themes, that the book as a whole is still narrated in a chronological fashion, ala “The Confusions of Pleasure”, gearing chapters to flow with a semblance of chronology but addressing themes within chapters.

[3] And by scholars, I refer specifically to Herbert Fingarette’s “Confucius: The Secular As Sacred”. I do not dare presume to know the context of the character from Classical to Modern Chinese, but in the context of the Classics and Fingarette, this is what I gather.

[4] In regards to the education system, the breakdown of the ethics as the focus was a slow process that has roots early into the Qing. Money could buy status even earlier, during the Ming (i.e. Purchase of Dragon robes, the scholars’ studios). As early as there were missionaries in China, there has existed a curiosity behind Western technology, even if it was stifled from top (i.e. The reign of Qianlong), and it was only a matter of time before the decision was made to Self-Strengthen by adopting Western technology. The exam reform can be seen therefore as a turning point, but not necessarily the singular cause of such downfall of ethics.

[5] Perhaps it is a bias of mine to use Daoist terminology when I write about Confucianism. But, I believe “Inner Alchemy” is the most precise word to be used in this situation. His view of the world was viewed in relation to his own identity (i.e. His age and position in the family, his education), like all Confucians, and therefore what he saw was a world shaped by his own morality. It is difficult to explain it in anything other than the holistic vocabulary of a Daoist.

[6] Example being Cao Zhi, prince and poet, who because of his position in society was forced to escape politics (for fear of death). Ruan Ji who drank to keep himself out of politics. Even as far back as Qu Yuan have the tragedies of service to the emperor been a dominant theme. Most seek solace by adopting Daoist traditions—solitude in work, hermitage, inebriation and poetry composition, etc. I think Liu Dapeng has quite a bit in common with these themes. My source for this information is a combination of Professor Fishlen and Sunflower Splendor.

[7] Liu preferred to reinstall the Xuantong emperor and isolate the reform to replacing the corrupt bureaucrat and court, whereas Kang wanted a constitutional monarchy and a moral revolution in several avenues besides Confucianism.(Zarrow 27-30, Harrison 100-101)

[8] The simplicity of the statements belie the actual complexity of the subject. In short, my connection of individual and leader is based upon the Five Relationships, and the common ideal that the relationship between a son and his father should be emulated at a political level. Superiority and inferiority are fundamental to this argument, thus indicating that the public should defer to the leader.

[9] Conservative fathers comprising of the Qing loyalists and even some of the Confucian radicals. I think I will prove that Liu is part of this category. As for the radical youth, this could be linked to not only the revolutionary radicals, but the resulting New Youth, who sought gender equality and an egalitarian society as a whole.

[10] This is my two sentence summation of Fingarette 37-56, thus in a sense a gross oversimplification. But in a way, all attempts to discuss ren is an exercise of futility in this regard. The very manner that Fingarette deals with the virtue, like Laozi—explaining the object by telling the reader what it is not—makes the task of specifically talking about the virtue very difficult. For the purposes of this essay, it represents the internal morality of Liu Dapeng, and his sense as to what society should be in his personal opinion. As to clarifying what I mean “the very character of ren”, I mean an analysis of the character via its radicals: a person (ren) and two (er). That is, that the action of a person in the context of a population (er) is the only way to see benevolence, yet it remains exclusively personal (ren). Even beyond my interpretation, the very ambiguity of possible interpretations reflects thoughtfully on the ambiguity of the term as a whole, I believe.

[11] That is, the nature of benevolence was not necessarily tied to the li relational duty one has based upon who is leading. It transformed into something tied to the nation—the Han race. Zarrow himself draws upon li more fully than ren to talk of the Han nation: he sees it as commonality in behavioral patterns, despite diverse geography and specific traditions (Zarrow 57-59). I prefer to look at it in the scope of ren because it seems more personal when isolating the conflict in how to see China politically, as opposed to the group identity. Zarrow’s comments are more of a look at popular identity rather than one exclusively looking up at who leads.

[12] My usage of dynasty is a reference to the Republic. I refer to it as dynasty to reflect how I believe he sees himself—as a loyalist of a fallen dynasty within the historical precedence of the preceding eras. That is, in his view that it is not a nation of like-minded individuals and identities as per the view of Liang Qichao, but as yet another dynasty with Yuan as a leader. It even has the tell-tale corruption of a illegitimate dynasty, so it is a plausible belief for a person conditioned to expect such rule in a time of foreign oppression (i.e. The Mongol rule during the Yuan, the Jurchen rule in the Jin, even the Manchu rule in the Qing) and overall chaos.

[13] Compare to my usage of “inner alchemy”.

~ by thedefinitearticle on June 2, 2008.