By Herbert Hanreich
Friday, Sep 28, 2007,
Challenges in an increasingly competitive, globalizing world require intellectual abilities that are Socratic, not Confucian. This is especially true for young Taiwanese, who lack analytical skills that allow them to study on their own, independent of teachers and textbooks.’
On Sept. 28, the birthday of Confucius (孔子), Taiwan and other parts of the Chinese cultural world commemorate the ideas of this sage, as he is generally called.
Although abolished as a national holiday in Taiwan some years ago, this day is an occasion for politicians, educators and other public figures to reflect upon the meaning of his writings for the modern age.
Governments are also involved: China, which brutally suppressed Confucianism until quite recently, will be spending around US$10 billion over the next couple of years to establish so-called Confucian Institutes all over the world. They are expected to promote Chinese culture at a global level, assuming a role similar to that of Goethe-Institutes for German culture.
Given the fact that one of the key features of Confucian thought is a great concern for political and social stability based on a high respect for political and social (family) leaders, it is no wonder that communist-ruled China, with its autocratic social systems, re-embraces Confucianism at a broad level, especially in times of eroding belief in the communist doctrines among its youth.
Culture matters, as the title of a famous book suggests, particularly in China: If party dogma fails to control its subjects, then resorting to the indigenous Confucian culture seems to be an obvious step which stipulates nearly unconditional obedience vis-a-vis state authorities, with the party chief functioning as head of an expanded "family."
It is disconcerting, however, to learn that voices favoring a revival of Confucianism can also be heard in today’s Taiwan, more than 20 years after the introduction of democracy.
Last year, in an editorial in the China Post on Sept. 28, entitled "Confucianism will stand the test of time," the author, who continuously addressed Confucius respectfully as "the sage" or "the master," claimed that the "lack of interest in the great master’s birthday and teachings is one of the factors behind the chaos -- both political and social -- that’s been plaguing Taiwan these past few years. It is also the major reason for the decline in the island’s economic vitality."
One can be sure that similar eulogies will also be written this year.
Let me repeat the message of this quoted article: Taiwan’s major problems in recent years -- the author probably meant since 2000 -- could have been avoided if its population had been more ardent followers of Confucius.
Paradoxically, there is a true side to this claim: It is true that the political and social life on this island would be less turbulent if Confucianism were the guiding doctrine of all people in Taiwan.
Uniformity has always been a tempting concept for dictators in the design of their ideal society, treating dissenting opinions as undesirable, dangerous or insane.
The Chinese leadership is a painful example of such a political attitude.
It is also true that social peace would be better maintained if, for instance, wives would bow to their husbands’ strong and "just" hand, and young people would always follow their parents’ "advice"; equally, if officials would follow blindly their superiors, and students their teachers.
Harmony is found in uniformity, and thus peace found in stability -- but is this a society that a modern mind wishes to live in?
Taiwan is an emerging democracy -- still. Things take time. A glance at young European democracies in the first half of the 20th century shows that many strong democracies failed in their first political trials.
Establishing a democracy is not just a matter of laws and institutions; it also involves changing the minds and hearts of the people in a way that they respect dissenting political ideas.
Societies in which open disagreements are the rule rather than the exception take a long time to develop.
A democratic government has to provide the institutional framework within which these debates can take place while resisting the temptation to impose morality on its citizens.
Such concepts of life cannot be prescribed patronizingly by any authority; they have to be found individually.
Confucianism, on the contrary, does not suggest so.
It seems that proponents of Confucianism aim to reduce such complexity in human nature by providing simple solutions for any situation.
Human nature, in their view, is not to be exposed to risks, but something that needs permanent guidance toward happiness and knowledge by those who fill the upper ranks of society.
The emphasis on learning as well as on teaching results from such an asymmetrical concept of society, which favors the powerful (e.g., fathers, teachers, bosses and officials) regardless of their professional or moral competence.
Moreover, this view propagates a society that is less capable of developing efficient safeguards against the misuse of power by firmly established authorities or self-appointed "sages."
This could help to explain why Confucian societies, including Taiwan, are based on control rather than on trust: A "sage" or a leader cannot fail or make any mistakes.
Therefore, these "infallibles" have to be somehow isolated from the people they dominate. They are endowed with the aura of a "sage" or an untouchable, and critical analyses of their words and deeds are deemed inappropriate. This status has to be permanently secured.
Around the time of Confucius’ death, Socrates was born, a noticeable coincidence, bringing the godfathers of two important civilizations very close on the time line of human history.
But whereas Confucius said of himself that "at 40 I came to be free from doubts" (Analects, II, 4), he says of the education of the young that "being good as a son and obedient as a young man is, perhaps, the root of a man’s character" (Analects, I, 2).
Socrates was a man of different concerns.
Instead of teaching general rules of behavior for the young to be applied in all circumstances as Confucius did, Socrates instigated that young people develop their own intellectual views and judgments by critically analyzing words and the contexts in which they are used.
Socrates explored his own experience in noticing that "truths," as uttered especially by influential and powerful people, are not what they seem or claim to be.
Criticizing traditional values and common practices, coupled with a skeptical mind toward anyone who claims to be knowledgeable, were considered by the Greek philosopher as crucial mental tools in the learning process.
Acquiring knowledge, according to Socrates, is therefore not a passive memorization of instructed rules and their correct application in daily life but a process in which critical thinking is the ultimate goal.
Socrates believed that becoming knowledgeable is not just about the accumulation of information but also a process of individual learning. It is evident that the results obtained in this way often deviate from the established ones.
Only incompetent teachers are afraid that their students will find out that their knowledge is not as solid as they contend.
Good teachers, however, stimulate the confrontation of ideas. Quite a few teachers in Taiwan, it seems, are afraid of their students.
Challenges in an increasingly competitive, globalizing world require intellectual abilities that are Socratic, not Confucian.
This is especially true for young Taiwanese, who lack analytical skills that allow them to study on their own, independent of teachers and textbooks -- a fact that can be easily observed.
There is a similar situation in the case of democratic behavior. The Socratic tradition of thought seems to be closer to the idea of democracy than Confucianism.
Socrates insisted that the principles underlying actions and arguments of the powerful should be open to both public and rational scrutiny, i.e., to everybody who is affected by them, whereas Confucius’ main concern apparently was the preservation of the social and hierarchical order, to be best achieved by obedience among subordinates.
It is my impression that people in Taiwan are often quite blinded by the empty phraseology which is used when defending Confucian values today. Without these moral crutches they fear chaos.
But how can individuals -- particularly the young -- find out how to be "good" if prescribed rules of behavior from the past are no longer available to them?
The art of teaching lies in enhancing a youth’s ability to make decisions on his or her own -- without teachers or nurses, but with responsibility. And this ability has to be strengthened.
From this perspective it does not make too much sense to celebrate Teachers’ Day as a national holiday nowadays.
Apparently, Confucius and his modern followers are less concerned with Socratic views.
These people are also less concerned with the demands and rights of lowly "subjects," instead interpreting responsibility to them as acts of personal favor or benevolence.
Officials are still seen as acting in the spirit of heads of families granting benefits instead of performing duties. This antiquated attitude, however, does not prepare young people for the future.
There is another, non-Confucian attitude, waiting to stand the test of time. Let us, therefore, give Confucius, who doubtlessly had his merits in feudal China some 2,500 years ago, an honorary place -- in the museum of history.
Herbert Hanreich is a professor in the Department of Applied English at I-Shou University in Kaohsiung County.
This story has been viewed 1356 times.
文章定位：
人氣(18) | 回應(0)| 推薦 (
0)| 收藏 (
0)|
轉寄
全站分類:
不分類
