Abstract
Having been a prime target of attack and denunciation for more than half a century, Confucianism enjoyed a robust revival in China in the 1980s and 1990s. By all accounts, this resurgence of Confucianism was spectacular. Rather than a relic of feudalism and a stumbling block to Chinese modernity as the May Fourth cultural iconoclasts once described, Confucianism was seen as an indispensible cultural force that would deliver China into global capitalism. Rather than a sociopolitical system that exploited women, peasants, and the poor as the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution once despised, Confucianism was considered the wellspring of cultural authenticity that would anchor China’s rise in the twenty-first century. A result of this spectacular revival is that Confucianism has become, once again, an important social and cultural force in China after 30 years of absence. This rapid return gives rise to speculations that a transformation “from Communism to Confucianism” is underway. In this chapter, I will analyze the New Confucian research project headed by Fang Keli 方克立. Funded by the Chinese government as part of the seventh (1986–96) and the eighth (1991–95) five year plans for philosophy and the social sciences, Fang’s research project defined the scale and scope of New Confucianism. It also directly linked New Confucianism to Confucian capitalism, thereby inserting the research into the debate of building “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” More importantly, it helped to start a discourse of state-capitalism that focused on modernity rather than revolution.
Placed in the museum of history by Joseph Levenson three decades ago, Confucianism has reemerged from the museum “to advance toward the twentieth-first century with a smile on his lips,” to quote a recent article in the Renmin ribao.
Arif Dirlik (2000)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a detailed study of this contemporary revival of Confucianism, see John Makeham (2008), especially Chapters 2 and 3.
- 2.
For an optimistic interpretation of contemporary Confucian revival, see Daniel A. Bell (2008). The phrase “from Communism to Confucianism” comes from the title of Chapter one of Bell’s book.
- 3.
Although xin rujia (New Confucianism) and xin ruxue (New Confucian learning) have slightly different meanings, the mainland researchers used the two terms interchangeably. Fang Keli, the head of the New Confucian research project, did not distinguish the two terms, and he used them as if they were synonymous.
- 4.
For a study of the Confucian revivals of the Guocui and Xueheng scholars, see my article “National Essence, National Learning, and Culture: Historical Writings Guocui xuebao, Xueheng, and Guoxue jikan, Historiography East and West 1:2 (2003): 242–295.
- 5.
- 6.
For a summary of Jiang Qing’s view, see Daniel A. Bell (2008), 175–191.
- 7.
John Makeham, for one, emphasizes Fang’s contribution in this respect. See John Makeham (2008), 331–350.
- 8.
In critiquing the “farewell to revolution,” Wang Hui coins the term “depoliticized politics.” See Wang Hui (2009). For a succinct summary of the significance of critiquing “the end of the revolution,” see Rebecca Karl’s foreword to The End of the Revolution¸ vii–x.
- 9.
On the significance of daotong in the construction of the genealogy of New Confucians, see John Makeham, “The New Daotong,” in New Confucianism: A Critical Examination, 55–78.
- 10.
Song Xianlin, “Reconstructing the Confucian Ideal in 1980s China: The “Culture Craze” and New Confucianism,” in John Makeham (2003), 81–104.
- 11.
In his writings, Fang did not explicitly spell out what exactly that drew the “three intellectual currents” into a dialogue and collaboration. But on several occasions, Fang linked the “three intellectual currents” to the debate among the Marxists, the liberals, and the conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s. The debate, as Wang Hui has pointed out, was how to reconfigure the political and socioeconomic structure of the Mao party state in the name of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” See Wang Hui, “The Year 1989 and the Historical Roots of Neoliberalism in China,” in Wang Hui (2009), 19–66.
- 12.
See, for instance, Fang Keli, 《关于现代新儒家研究的几个问题》 (A Few Questions Regarding the Study of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 17–34.
- 13.
- 14.
Fang Keli, 《关于现代新儒家研究的几个问题》 (A Few Questions Regarding the Studies of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 20–21.
- 15.
See Mou Zongsan (1968).
- 16.
Fang Keli, 《现代新儒家的发展历程》 (The Development Process of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 139–141.
- 17.
- 18.
Fang Like complained bitterly of Mou Zongsan’s anti-Communist stand. See Fang Keli, 《第三代新儒家掠影》 (Glimpses of the Third-Generation New Confucians), in Fang Keli (1997), 54–63.
- 19.
Fang Keli, 《现代新儒家的发展历程》 (The Development Process of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 143–146.
- 20.
Fang Keli, 《现代新儒家的发展历程》 (The Development Process of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 146-150.
- 21.
Fang Keli, 《展望儒学的未来前景必须正视的两个问题》 (Two Important Questions Concerning the Future of Confucianism), in Fang Keli (1997), 188.
- 22.
Fang Keli, 〈儒家资本主义〉 (Confucian Capitalism), in Fang Keli (1997), 458.
- 23.
Fang Keli, 〈儒家资本主义〉 (Confucian Capitalism), in Fang Keli (1997), 458.
- 24.
Fang Keli, 〈儒家资本主义〉 (Confucian Capitalism), in Fang Keli (1997), 459.
- 25.
After 1992, Fang Keli had to deal with criticisms from many sides. Consequently, his writings became polemical and defensive. He was less forthcoming in promoting the dialogue and cooperation with scholars outside China. Fang also identified 1992 as the year when “mainland New Confucians” made their voice known in public. For a clear example of Fang’s change, see his article 《现代新儒家研究的自我回省—敬答诸位批评者》 (The Self-criticism of the Study of Modern New Confucianism—A Respectful Reply to My Critic), in Fang Keli (1997), 192–209.
- 26.
Rebecca Karl’s foreword to The End of the Revolution¸ ix
References
Arif Dirlik, “Reveals, Ironies, Hegemonies: Notes on the Contemporary Historiography of Modern China,” in History After the Three Worlds: Post-Eurocentric Historiography, edited by Arif Dirlik, Vinay Bahl, and Peter Gran (Landham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000), 127.
John Makeham, “The Retrospective Creation of New Confucianism, in John Makeham, ed., New Confucianism: A Critical Examination, edited by John Makeham (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 25–53.
Arif Dirlik, “Confucius in the Borderlands: Global Capitalism and the Reinvention of Confucianism,” boundary 2, 22, 3 (1995): 261–271.
Li Zehou and Liu Zaifu, Guobie geming: Huiwang ershi shiji Zhongguo 告别革命:回望二十世纪中国 (Farewell to Revolution: Looking Back on Twentieth-Century China) (Hong Kong: Tiandi tushu youxian gongsi, 1995).
Jing Wang, High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Deng’s China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 37-117.
Fang Keli, 《略论现代新儒家之得失》 (A Brief Assessment of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Modern New Confucianism), in Fang Keli, Xiandai xinrujia yu Zhongguo xiandai hua 现代新儒家与中国现代化》 (Modern New Confucianism and China’s Modernization) (Tianjin: Tianjin renmin chubanshi, 1997), 46.
Du Weiming (Tu Wei-ming), 《儒学第三期发展的前景问题》 (The Prospect for the Development of the Third Epoch of Confucianism), in Bainian Zhongguo zhexue jingdian: Bashi naindai yilai juan 百年中国哲学经典:八十年代以来卷 (The Classics of Chinese Philosophy in the Last Hundred Years: Section on the Post-1980s) (Shenzhen: Haitian chubanshe, 1998), 502-530. Tu’s article was first appeared in 1986 in Mingbao yuekan.
John Makeham, Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008)
Daniel A. Bell, China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Every Life in a Changing Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
Fang Keli 方克立 and Zheng Jiadong 郑家栋, ed., Xiandai xinrujia renwu yu zhuzuo 现代新儒家人物与著作 (The Modern New Confucians and Their Writings) (Tianjin: Nankai daxue chubanshe, 1995)
Fang Keli, Li Jinquan 李锦全, ed., Xiandai xinrujia xuean 现代新儒家学案 (Intellectual Biographies of Modern New Confucians) (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995)
Wang Hui, The End of the Revolution: China and the Limits of Modernity (London: Verso, 2009), 3–19
Gilbert Rozman, The East Asian Region: Confucian Heritage and Its Modern Adaptations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991)
Hung-chao Tai, ed., Confucianism and Economic Development: An Oriental Alternative? (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute Press, 1989)
Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti 心体与性体 (The Essence of Human Ming and the Essence of Human Nature) (Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1968), introduction, 1–196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hon, Tk. (2015). From Culture to Cultural Nationalism: A Study of New Confucianism of the 1980s and 1990s. In: Alitto, G. (eds) Contemporary Confucianism in Thought and Action. China Academic Library. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47750-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47750-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47749-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47750-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)