I only read the beginning and the end of this book in Chinese translation. But I enjoy a central tension it explores.
On the one hand Confucianism as a matter of history relied on the absolute power of “the Son of Heaven” for legitimacy and propagation.
On the other, Confucians have always emphasised the need for benevolence and tolerance. One resorts to law and force only as the very last measure. To be a gentleman is to set an example; if everything works (it seldom does), the crowds will follow and there should be no need for any coercion at all.
But as Confucius, Mencius and many others recognised, often the dream of living under the Tao is precisely that. A dream.
And in any case there is no real effective method to edge society towards that dream: Confucius and Mencius went around the countries and talked until they were blue in the mouth, but ended their careers making little progress.
It is therefore refreshing to hear Joseph Chan’s attempt to re-shape and re-interpret the classic Confucian texts in response to contemporary developments.
I’ll just highlight one aspect that interests me the most: “sufficientism”, or the idea that everyone should have enough resources to pursue the “higher” things in life, eg studies and music, but no more. Prosperity is encouraged, but not dreams of avarice.
In a fast changing world, where cutting edge technologies such as large language models attract our eyeballs (and billions of dollars of investment), it is hard to live in a way where one thinks one should simply do one’s bit and let the results take care of themselves. Which in some ways is how “sufficientism” encourages us to live.
Traditional Confucians have a deep seated distrust of competition and the desire to “prove” oneself by getting ahead of others. Competition, if engaged at all, is to be conducted with pomp and circumstance, where good manners are almost more important than the result.
It is an engaging puzzle how one can square that with the innovative and attention-grabbing ethos of contemporary elites.