Edward Yang's Confusion (original) (raw)
Related papers
MODERN NEW CONFUCIANISM AND CHINESE MODERNITY (Special issue of Asian Studies, Vol. 2 No.1)
Asian Studies 2(1), 2014
The present issue of The Journal of Asian Studies is dedicated to problems linked to the specific features of Chinese modernization, as viewed through the lens of Modern Confucianism. It contains selected contributions from the international symposium, Contemporary Confucianism and Chinese Modernization, Reykjavik, 7–8 September 2013, which was organized by Geir Sigurðsson, in cooperation with the Northern Lights Confucius Institute and the Chinese Studies department of the University of Iceland. Modern Confucianism arose China at the edge of the previous century and was later developed further by theorists from Taiwan, and, to a lesser degree, from Hong Kong. Unlike the People’s Republic of China, where Confucianism was considered to be the “ideology of outdated feudalism” and therefore silenced (at least formally) until the 1980s, in Hong Kong and Taiwan, both of which were defined by post-colonial social discourses, a number of intellectuals began opposing the growing Westernization of their societies already in the 1950s. Due to the multilayered cultural, national and political situation in Taiwan, intellectuals from that country played an important role in developing this new philosophical current from the very outset.
Modern Confucianism and Chinese Theories of Modernization
The Confucian revival, which manifests itself in the modern Confucian current, belongs to the most inf luential and important streams of thought in contemporary Chinese philosophy and represents a crucial part of the new prevailing ideologies in P. R. China. Although many books and articles on this topic are available in Chinese, academic studies in Western languages are still few and far between. The present article aims to introduce this stream of thought which is grounded in the conviction that traditional Confucianism, understood as a specifically Chinese social, political, and moral system of thought can, if renewed and adapted to meet the conditions of the modern era, serve as the foundation for an ethically meaningful modern life. Simultaneously, modern Confucian philosophers also aim to provide a spiritual antidote to the alienation which is seen by them as a collateral effect of the capitalistic glorification of competition and the single-minded pursuit of profit. The scholars belonging to this stream sought to reconcile ‘Western’ and ‘traditional Chinese’ values, in order to create a theoretical model of modernization that would not be confused or equated with ‘Westernization’.
This chapter focuses on the popular Confucian revival that started at the beginning of the 21st century in Mainland China. After a presentation of its different phases, it analyzes how the actors involved in this revival perceive the predicaments of the present times and how they build upon resources offered by the past (here, the revived tradition of Confucianism) in order to fuel their imagination about the future. In so doing, it explores why Confucianism is considered by many, at different levels (grassroots level, authorities) and for different reasons, meaningful and relevant in the context of late modernity. The chapter is also a contribution to a broader reflection about the transformations of the “regime of historicity” (articulation between the different dimensions of time: past, present and future) that can be observed in today’s China. This ahead of print version is uploaded on Academia.edu with the authorization of the volume editors. Final proofreading has not taken place.
Confucianism in Chinese Society in the First Two Decades of the 21st Century
The Cambridge History of Confucianism, ed. Kiri Paramore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)
This chapter will be published in the forthcoming Cambridge History of Confucianism edited by Kiri Paramore (forthcoming 2022 or 2023). This ahead of print version has been uploaded on Academia.edu with the authorization of the publisher.