Confucian Self-Identity and Self-Realization in the Modern World

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the relevance of Confucianism to modern democracy. By modern democracy is meant the fullest possible participation of the greatest number of the people, regardless of their social origin, gender, race, class, religion, physical disability, and other differentiating factors, in the relevant decision-making procedures and processes of political life. One key concept integral to modern democracy is that of individual. I discuss the Confucian variation on the Deweyan theme of social individual as contrasted with the now antiquated notion of the classical modern Western libertarian concept of atomic individual. A social individual is an individual who can make responsible choice in social context; a social individual has social responsibilities commensurate with his/her freedom and individual rights. The sort of freedom (liberty) that social individuals exercise is positive liberty as well as negative liberty (to use the expressions coined by Isaiah Berlin as evidently inspired by Immanuel Kant). I relate Berlin’s positive liberty to the Mencian twin concepts of jadeuk (in Korean) or tzu te (in Chinese), that is, acquiring the Way by self-efforts and jaim (in Korean) and tzu jen (in Chinese), to wit, assuming one’s responsibility of one’s own accord. These twin concepts embody “moral individualism” (to use the expression invented by William de Bary) in Confucianism. In lieu of “moral individualism,” I use the expression “holistic individualism” for similar purposes. For Confucians, true freedom means being able to perform responsible action in specific cultural, historical, and social context. Which means that becoming thoroughly familiar with the old helps an enlightened individual to project new possibilities onto the future (onko chishin). Onko chishin has affinity with Heidegger’s Zeitlichkeit and the Deweyan concept of social individual. I discuss the relevance of the Confucian notion of rulership of virtue or virtuous statesmanship to modern democracy, that is to say, the relevance of practicing statesmanship to show humane care (in in Korean and ren in Chinese) for the people by nourishing them, furthering their well-being, helping them to be educated, and helping to enhance their dignity. The Confucian idea of rectification of names resonates with modern democracy’s idea of separation of powers. In Confucian society, for that matter in any civilized society, rituals (ye in Korean, li in Chinese) should have primacy over the law: self-assertion should yield to deference for pride of place in civilized society. Yet the coupling of rites/rights need not be an uneasy one. I submit that an enlightened concept of rights in modern democracy is complementary to the Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership. In particular, I discuss civil rights, political rights, and social rights as advanced by T. H. Marshall in relation to the idea of the welfare state. The three kinds of rights are inextricably interwoven with one another. Civil rights lead to political rights which in turn occasion the rise of social rights. I relate them to the traditional Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership. In fine, the rights as cast by Marshall in the mold of modern democracy resonate with the traditional Confucian ideal of virtuous rulership, that is to say, the ideal of nourishing and educating the people, furthering their well-being and dignity, and helping them realize their full human potentialities. For enlightened Confucians and enlightened liberals alike, self-identity is self-realization, that is, fully realizing one’s human potentialities. Confucianism and modern democracy are the twain that, pace Kipling, has met.