One of the causes of the Chinese Society’s disadvantages - Misconception of “Li”禮

This is the final essay of GES 1610B "Great Books of the World", guided by Prof. Allinson

Introduction

Before the ending of the Ching Dynasty, the Chinese society could be regarded as a Confucius society. Every aspects of the society is imbued with Confucian ideas like “jen” 仁 and “cheng” 正名. For the Confucius embracers, Analects 論語 is the bible. However, many ideas in Analects were not given a clear or detailed interpretations or explanations by K’ung Ch’iu 孔子. As a result, many scholars had been trying to interpret those ideas.

“li” 禮 is one of the two important ideas in Analects ( another one is “jen”). It appears 75 times in the book, but no clear interpretations were given. Thus two main interpretations were suggested by two schools: Instrumentalist and Definitionalist. In the following part, I am going to analyze the misconception of “li” and how it contributes to the ugliness or negative side of the Chinese culture or society.
2 approaches to interpret “Li”

Chinese classical books are different from western classical books. For the westerners, the essence of their life, culture or thinking is logic, accuracy, relations…thus they define their concepts very precisely. But for Chinese, the words or concepts related to amalgamation, natural, love…play the most vital role in their culture and society. The above ideas had been embodied in the words and ideas of the Chinese books.

Analects is the bible of Confucius scholars. However, most of the ideas like “jen” and “li” were not given an accurate and precise interpretation. There are no definitions, K’ung Ch’iu only explain its ideas by giving stories. Antonio S. Cua thinks that there are two reasons behind: First, the assumption of the primacy of practical reason implicit in the Confucian doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action; second, the assumption that reasoned discourse may legitimately appeal to “plausible presumptions”. Thus he thought that “These terms, (Ren, Li and Yi) are much like adjuster words…by the use of which other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of the worlds upon language.1

As a result, two main approaches, namely Instrumentalist and Definitionalist analysis, were suggested 2. For the former one, “jen” is supposed to be a perfect state of human mind, it is the constitution and essence of the gentlemen. And “li” is only a social restriction or the instrument to embody the principle of “Jen”. “Jen” itself is the ultimate value of the people, and the value of the existence of “li” is to make “Jen” observable. It is derived from the instrumental role of “li” plays with regard to “Jen”. Thus “jen” has a prior value and status and “li” is simply an tool. This concept basically comes from some words in the Analects.

The Master said, “What can a man do with the rites (li) who is not benevolent (jen)? What can a man do with the music who is not benevolent?” (Book 3)

Tzu-hsia asked, “Her entrancing smile dimpling, Her beautiful eyes glancing, Patterns of color upon plain silk. What is the meaning of these lines?”
The Master said, “The plain silk is there first. The colors come afterwards”
“Does the practice of the rites likewise come afterwards?”
The Master said. “It is you, Shang, who have thrown light on the text for me. Only with man like you can one discuss the Odes” (Book 3) 3

From the above, we can know that “li” is only subordinated to “jen”. And Intrumentalists also hold the view that “li” can be changed in different occasions. As a result, “People may be justified in revising or occasionally departing from a rule of “li” if observing the rule does not serve well its function with regard to the “jen” ideal, either generally or on particular occasions”. 4

For the Definitonalists, “li” is not subordinated to the idea “jen”. Their idea form a striking contrast to the Instrumentalists by interpreting “li” as a more important idea than “li”. “jen” cannot stand alone and has an independent value unrelated to “li”, it is not the principles. The fact is “jen” is defined by “li”. Without “li”, there would be no “jen”. Definitionalists think that they are right by viewing the following words in Analects.

Yen Yuan asked about benevolence (jen). The Master said, “To return to the observance of the rites (li) through overcoming the self constitutes benevolence. If for a single day a man could return to the observances of the rites through overcoming himself, then the whole Empire would consider benevolence to be his. However, the practice of benevolence depends on oneself alone, and not the others…(Book12)

The Master said, “Being widely versed in culture but brought back to essentials by the rites a man can, I suppose, be relied upon not to turn against what he stood for”

From the above words, “jen” is not the essence or principles, it is the observance of “li” that has ultimate value. Through observing a person’s “li”, one can find “Jen” or “not jen” of him. Since “li” is the essence but not “jen”, Definitonalists oppose to any changes to “li”. “…the ideal is just generally to observe those rules of “li” that actually exist, this conception of the relation between “Jen” and “li” is conservative in spirit in that it is opposed to any revision of or departure from the existing “li” rules”. 5

Misconception of “li” by the Chinese

We do not know the exact environment of the Han Dynasty when it chose to develop Confucianism only and ignore the other schools. Thus we do not know which interpretation of “li”, which affected the following two thousand years, they favored. But from the Chinese history from the period of K’ung Ch’iu to the last Dynasty Ching, it was clearly that the kings liked Definitionalist interpretation. In Chinese history, “li” was always encouraged by the Government while “jen” was seldom upheld. Thus, the misconception of the idea “li” by the Chinese is that they took the interpretation of the Definitionalists which deem that “li” is more important than “jen”, thus the value and content of “li” could not be changed since the embodiment of “jen” is practiced through the observing of people.

According to T.T. Meadows, “Rebellion” is the movement overthrows the tyranny and “Revolution” is the movement overthrows the political system. And he thought that Chinese was the race which carried the most rebellions but the least revolutions. The only revolution was the revolution to overthrow Chow Dynasty by the nobles 6. Chinese were only willing to overthrow the tyranny but not willing to overthrow the political system (which is a kind of “li”). Chinese just hoped that their new king would be a “jen” king and would carry out “jen” policy, but they had never thought of changing “li” to improve the political system. His ideas in fact indirectly pointed out that Chinese favor “li” more than “jen” (The mind of the people).

The situation changed only until the westerners came. But the resistance of “li” was still great. Chinese were only willing to get the technology and science. Unlike their counterparts in Japan, they were reluctant to give up their original culture or social and political norms. It was not changed until the coming of some social movements like May-forth Movement and New Cultural Movement.

However, even the above movements and some later communist movements could not change the misconception of “li”. They did not contemplate the essence of the meaning of “li”, they simply thought that “li” was old customs and must be eradicated and they had never thought of another interpretation. It implied that the movements’ leaders clung to the notions that “li” was some restrictions which were unchangeable.


A better interpretation – Instrumentalist

Instrumentalist interpretation of “li” would be a better approach to analyze the thought of Confucius. For Confucius, all of the main ideas do not precise definition.

‘It has been justly observed that “for Chinese (Confucius) the idea is not so much to analyze and define concepts precisely as to expand them, to make them suggestive of the widest possible range of meaning…

‘The point does not depreciate the importance of theoretical inquiry, but focuses upon its relevance to the requirements of practice. Since such requirements may vary in time and place, any theory is finally tested in the light of changing human circumstances.’ 7

Under the interpretation of instrumentalists, stories in Analects are metaphors. Confucius did not try to give definition because he deemed that those ideas were just some relations of meanings. “li” and “jen” are some abstract idea without definition, but it does not mean that they do not exist. They exist as different states and form under different circumstances. That’s the essence of Confucian learning. Since the meanings were something implied in the book implicitly, it was not understood until more modern discussion by new Confucian intellectuals.



Misconception of “li” in contributing to the disadvantages of Chinese Society

Chinese misconception of “li” had been contributing to the disadvantages of Chinese society and culture. The Confucian scholars wrongly interpreted that “li” is something could not be changed and fixed. Since the Chinese life and culture since the period of Han Dynasty had been dominated by the Confucius ideas, this misconception had been affecting different aspects or fields in China.

There are two main disastrous effects to the Chinese customs and tradition brought by the misconception of “li”. First, it implicitly became the main obstacle in preventing the politician or scholars from encouraging the changing or transformation of the Chinese political or social forms. “li” was unchangeable, any reforms must not be deviated from the route of “li”. For example, Sung Dynasty’s and Ching Dynasty’s reforms were failed because of the struggle between the Conservative and New Party over the matter of touching the “li”. Conservative party usually used the pretext of “not li” to get rid of the reforms of the New Party. After the May-Forth Movement, the Chinese had never though of reconsidering the meaning of “li”, they simply devoted their effort in eradicating “li”. From Han to the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese had been bounded by a fixed “li”. This fixed “li” played a role of a main obstacle and stumbling block in affecting the developments and modernization of China.

Second, it led to the falseness and externalism of Chinese. Since “jen” had to be observed by the expression of “li”, for avoiding being said as not “jen”, Chinese people, no matter are willing or not, had to pretend to be “li” people. The emotions and feelings were suppressed. The overemphasis of “li” led to the ignorance of “jen”. Just as what the Master said ‘What can a man do with the rites who is not benevolent?’(Book3)

Conclusion

Analects, as the most vital books in Chinese culture and academy, bring many advantages to the Chinese people. As a race without a religion in guiding people towards humanity, Confucianism had been playing an irreplaceable role in acting as the spiritual link of the Chinese. It dominated every classes and types of people.

However, its origin was misunderstood by the scholars. Instrumentalists an interpretation was regarded as subordinated to the Definitionalists’. Thus most reforms and chances of modernization were missed. Confucius was even deemed as the killer who suffocates the development of Chinese politics and social forms. Until the New Confucian intellectuals came out, Confucius’ status was redressed.
In the foreseeable future, Confucianism will still dominate the Chinese culture. And the Analects, as a knowledge treasure-house, was still waited for more research.


Reference

1. Antonio S. Cua, The Concepts of Li in Confucian Moral Theory, Understanding the Chinese mind : the philosophical roots / editor, Robert E. Allinson (Hong Kong Oxford University Press, 1989), P. 210

2. Kwong-Loi Shun, Ren and Li in the Analects, Confucius and the Analects : new essays / edited by Bryan W. Van Norden (Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2002), P.56

3. The following quotations of Analects is according to Confucius : the analects / translated by D.C. Lau. (Hong Kong : Chinese University Press, 1992, 2nd ed)

4. See Reference 3, P. 56-58

5. See Reference 3, P.56-58

6. T.T. Meadows, The Chinese and their Rebellions, London, Smith, Elder, 1856

7. See Reference 2, P.56