|
|
|
The Ecological Turn in New
Confucian Humanism: Implications for China and the World
Tu Weiming
 ODAY
VIRTUALLY ALL AXIAL-AGE CIVILIZATIONS are going through their own distinctive
forms of transformation in response to the multiple challenges of modernity.1
One of the most crucial questions they face is what wisdom they can offer to
reorient the human developmental trajectory of the modern world in light of the
growing environmental crisis.
China and the Confucian tradition
face an especially significant challenge given the size of China’s population
and the scale of her current efforts at modernization. A radical rethinking of
Confucian humanism began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when China was engulfed in an unprecedented radical social disintegration as
the result of foreign invasion and domestic dissension. In the late twentieth
century, this reformulation continued in the “New Confucian movement” led by
concerned intellectuals, some of whom left mainland China for Taiwan and Hong
Kong when communism was established as the ruling ideology in the People’s
Republic in 1949.
In the last twenty-five years,
three leading New Confucian thinkers in Taiwan, mainland China, and Hong Kong
independently concluded that the most significant contribution the Confucian
tradition can offer the global community is the idea of the “unity of Heaven
and Humanity” (tianrenheyi), a unity that Confucians believe also
embraces Earth. I have described this vision as an anthropocosmic worldview, in
which the human is embedded in the cosmic order, rather than an anthropocentric
worldview, in which the human is alienated, either by choice or by default,
from the natural world.2
By identifying the comprehensive unity of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity as a
critical contribution to the modern world, these three key figures in New
Confucian thought signaled the movement toward both retrieval and
reappropriation of Confucian ideas. Speaking as public intellectuals concerned
about the direction of the modern world, each of the three key thinkers
articulated this idea of unity in a distinctive way.
Qian Mu (1895–1990) of Taiwan
characterized the unity as a mutuality between the human heart-mind and the Way
of Heaven.3
Tang Junyi (1909–1978) of Hong Kong emphasized “immanent transcendence”: we can
apprehend the Mandate of Heaven by understanding our heart-and-mind; thus, the
transcendence of Heaven is immanent in the communal and critical
self-consciousness of human beings as a whole.4
Similarly, Feng Youlan (1895–1990) of Beijing rejected his previous commitment
to the Marxist notion of struggle and stressed the value of harmony not only in
the human world, but also in the relationship between humans and nature.5
Since all three thinkers articulated their final positions toward the end of
their lives, the unity of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity sums up the wisdom of
these elders in the Sinic world. I would like to suggest that this New
Confucian idea of cosmic unity marks an ecological turn of profound importance
for China and the world.
AN ECOLOGICAL TURN
Qian Mu called this new realization a major breakthrough
in his thinking. When his wife and students raised doubts about the novelty of
his insight—the idea of unity between Heaven and Humanity is centuries
old—Qian, already in his nineties, emphatically responded that his
understanding was not a reiteration of conventional wisdom, but a personal
enlightenment, thoroughly original and totally novel.6
His fascination with the idea of mutuality between the human heart-and-mind and
the Way of Heaven, and his assertion that this idea is a unique Chinese
contribution to the world, attracted the attention of several leading
intellectuals in cultural China.7
Tang Junyi, on the other hand,
presented his view from a comparative civilizational perspective. He contrasted
Confucian self-cultivation with Greek, Christian, and Buddhist spiritual
exercises, and concluded that Confucianism’s commitment to the world combined
with its profound reverence for Heaven offered a unique contribution to human
flourishing in the modern world. The Confucian worldview, rooted in earth,
body, family, and community, is not “adjustment to the world,”8
submission to the status quo, or passive acceptance of the physical,
biological, social, and political constraints of the human condition. Rather,
it is dictated by an ethic of responsibility informed by a transcendent vision.
We do not become “spiritual” by departing from or transcending above our earth,
body, family, and community, but by working through them. Indeed, our daily
life is not merely secular but a response to a cosmological decree. Since the
Mandate of Heaven that enjoins us to take part in the great enterprise of
cosmic transformation is implicit in our nature, we are Heaven’s partners. In
Tang’s graphic description, the ultimate goal of being human is to enable the
“Heavenly virtue” (tiande) to flow through us. His project of
reconstructing the secular humanist spirit is, therefore, predicated on an
anthropocosmic vision.9
Feng Youlan’s radical reversal of
his earlier position is an implicit critique of Mao Zedong’s thoughts on
struggle and the human capacity to conquer nature. His return to the philosophy
of harmony of Zhang Zai (1020–1077) signaled a departure from his Marxist phase
and a re-presentation of Confucian ideas he had first developed in the 1940s,
prior to the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The opening lines in
Zhang Zai’s “Western Inscription” state:
| |
Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother,
and even such a small creature as I finds an intimate place in their midst. |
| |
Therefore that which
fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I
consider as my nature. |
| |
All people are my
brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions.10 |
The “Western Inscription” can be regarded as a core
Neo-Confucian text in articulating the anthropocosmic vision of the unity of
Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Accordingly, Feng characterizes the highest stage
of human self-realization as the embodiment of the “spirit of Heaven and
Earth.”11
A significant aspect of Qian,
Tang, and Feng’s ecological turn was their effort to retrieve the spiritual
resources of the classical and Neo-Confucian heritages. In the sixteenth
century, for example, Wang Yangming (1472–1529) offered in his “Inquiry on the
Great Learning” an elegant interpretation of Confucian thought, one with rich
implications for modern ecological thinking:
| |
The great man regards Heaven and Earth and the
myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the country
as one person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and distinguish
between self and others, they are small men. That the great man can regard
Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body is not because he deliberately
wants to do so, but because it is natural to the humane nature of his mind that
he do so.12 |
By emphasizing the “humane nature of the mind” as the
reason that the great person can embody the universe in his sensitivity, Wang
made the ontological assertion that the ability to strike a sympathetic
resonance with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things is a defining
characteristic of being human.
To demonstrate that this is
indeed the case, he offered a series of concrete examples:
| |
When we see a child about to fall into the
well, we cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration. This shows that our
humanity (ren) forms one body with the child. It may be objected that
the child belongs to the same species. Again, when we observe the pitiful cries
and frightened appearances of birds and animals about to be slaughtered, we
cannot help feeling an “inability to bear” their suffering. This shows that our
humanity forms one body with birds and animals. It may be objected that birds
and animals are sentient beings as we are. But when we see plants broken and
destroyed, we cannot help a feeling of pity. This shows that our humanity forms
one body with plants. It may be said that plants are living things as we are.
Yet even when we see tiles and stones shattered and crushed, we cannot help a
feeling of regret. This shows that our humanity forms one body with tiles and
stones.13 |
These examples clearly indicate that “forming one body” entails not the
romantic ideal of unity, but rather a highly differentiated understanding of
interconnectedness.
Neo-Confucian thinkers like Wang
deeply influenced Qian, Tang, and Feng. The efforts of the latter group to
employ Confucian ideas to enunciate their final positions may seem to be a
matter of personal style. Yet all three were obviously convinced that their
cherished tradition had a message for the emerging global village; they
delivered it in the most appropriate way they knew. Their use of a prophetic
voice suggests that their Confucian message was addressed not only to a Chinese
audience but also to the human community as a whole. They did not wish merely
to honor their ancestors but also to show that they cared for the well-being of
future generations.
Were they even conscious of the
ecological implications of their final positions? In the last decades of the
twentieth century, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even mainland China were all marching
toward Western-style forms of social organization. Modernization was the most
powerful ideology in China. By challenging China’s traditional
agriculture-based economy, family-centered social structure, and paternalist
government, industrialization seemed to seal the fate of Confucianism as no
longer relevant to the vital concerns of the contemporary world.14
Perhaps Qian, Tang, and Feng were nostalgic for the kind of “universal
brotherhood” or “unity of all things” that Max Weber and others have supposed
must disappear in a disenchanted modern world. However, while traces of
romantic longing can be seen in their writings, all three discovered a new
vitality in the Confucian tradition. In order to appreciate properly what these
men accomplished, it will be useful to recall the broad historical context in
which they worked.
HOLISTIC CONFUCIAN HUMANISM
Prior to the impact of the modern West, Confucian
humanism largely defined political ideology, social ethics, and family values
in East Asia. Since the East Asian educated elite were all well versed in the
Confucian classics, what the three contemporary thinkers advocated as a unique
Confucian contribution to the human community was, in fact, a spiritual
orientation once widely shared in China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. The famous
“eight steps” in the first chapter of the Great Learning provide
a glimpse of what Confucian humanism purported to be:
| |
The ancients who wished to illuminate their
“illuminating virtue” to all under Heaven first governed their states. Wishing
to govern their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to
regulate their families, they first cultivated their personal lives. Wishing to
cultivate their personal lives, they first rectified their hearts and minds.
Wishing to rectify their hearts and minds, they first authenticated their
intentions. Wishing to authenticate their intentions, they first refined their
knowledge. The refinement of knowledge lay in the study of things. For only
when things are studied is knowledge refined; only when knowledge is refined
are intentions authentic; only when intentions are authentic are hearts and
minds rectified; only when hearts and minds are rectified are personal lives
cultivated; only when personal lives are cultivated are families regulated;
only when families are regulated are states governed; only when states are
governed is there peace all under Heaven. Therefore, from the Son of Heaven to
the common people, all, without exception, must take self-cultivation as the
root.15 |
This holistic vision of a
peaceful world rests on a carefully integrated program of personal
self-cultivation, harmonized family life, and well-ordered states. At the heart
of this vision is a sense that “home” implies not only the human community, but
also the natural world and the larger cosmos. Speaking directly to the
above passage, Wm. Theodore de Bary has observed, “Chinese and Confucian
culture, traditionally, was about settled communities living on the land,
nourishing themselves and the land. It is this natural, organic process that
Confucian self-cultivation draws upon for all its analogies and metaphors.”16
He noted that the farmer poet Wendell Berry made the Confucian point: “[H]ome
and family are central, and we cannot hope to do anything about the environment
that does not first establish the home—not just the self and family—as the home
base for our efforts.” De Bary concluded that:
| |
If we have to live in a much larger world,
because ecological problems can only be managed on a global scale, the
infrastructure between home locality and state (national or international) is
also vital. But without home, we have nothing for the infrastructure, much less
the superstructure, to rest on. This is the message of Wendell Berry; and also
the lesson of Confucian and Chinese history.17 |
The human in this worldview is an
active participant in the cosmic process with the responsibility of care for
the environment. Thus in the classical period of Confucianism we see a holistic
humanism expressed in the Great Learning. Furthermore,
environmental concerns implicit in the Great Learning are
explicitly articulated in other core Confucian texts. A statement in the Doctrine
of the Mean succinctly captures the essence of this
cosmological thinking:
| |
Only those who are the most sincere
[authentic, true, and real] can fully realize their own nature. If they can
fully realize their own nature, they can fully realize human nature. If they
can fully realize human nature, they can fully realize the nature of things. If
they can fully realize the nature of things, they can take part in the
transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth. If they can take part
in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth, they can form a
trinity with Heaven and Earth.18 |
Obviously, this idea of the
interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and humans was precisely what the three
thinkers had in mind in stressing the centrality of the precept of “the unity
of Heaven and Humanity,” although for more than a century this idea had been
regarded as an archaic irrelevance in cultural China. The excitement of
rediscovering this central Confucian precept was a poignant reminder of how
much had been lost and how difficult it was to retrieve the elements of the
tradition that remained significant.
CRITICAL VOICES FOR AN ECOLOGICAL TURN: NEW CONFUCIANS
AND THE EARTH CHARTER
Both from within the Confucian tradition and from
without, critical voices have emerged to criticize the Enlightenment vision of
secularization, rationalization, and development at any cost. Even at
the height of the May Fourth Movement’s obsession with Westernization as
modernization, some of the most original New Confucians had begun to question
the individualistic worldview and utilitarian ethics implicit in the
Enlightenment project. Two key examples are Xiong Shili (1883–1968), who
elaborated a naturalistic philosophy of vitalism, and Liang Shuming
(1893–1988), who called for restraint and moderation in using natural
resources.
Xiong Shili reconfigured
Confucian metaphysics through a critical analysis of the basic motifs of the
Consciousness-Only school of Buddhism. He insisted that the Confucian idea of
the “great transformation” (dahua) is predicated on the participation of
the human in cosmic processes, rather than the imposition of human will on
nature. He further observed that as a continuously evolving species, human
beings are not created apart from nature, but emerge as an integral part of the
primordial forces of production and reproduction. The vitality that engenders
human creativity is the same energy that gives rise to mountains, rivers, and
the whole of the planet. There is consanguinity between humans, Heaven, Earth,
and the myriad things of nature. Since his naturalistic vitalism is based on
the Book of Change and some Neo-Confucian writings, the
ethic of forming one body with nature looms large in his moral idealism.19
Liang Shuming characterized the
Confucian ethos as a balance between detachment from and aggression toward
nature. Although he conceded that China had to learn from the West to enhance
her competitive fitness for the sake of national survival, he prophesized that
in the long run the Indian spirit of renunciation would prevail.20
While Liang merely hinted at the possibility of alternative visions of human
development, his inquiry generated a strong current in reevaluating and
revitalizing Confucianism at a time when Westernization dominated the Chinese
intellectual scene.
The distinctive contributions of
these two thinkers are critical to the ecological turn of later Confucianism.
Xiong highlights the naturalistic vitalism of the tradition from its classical
expression in the Book of Change to its Neo-Confucian
articulation in the notion of the fecundity of life (sheng-sheng).
Liang maintains that long-term human survival depends on the practice of
moderation, a hallmark of Confucian cultivation in attaining balance, harmony,
and equilibrium. Thus Xiong and Liang observe that the vitality of natural
processes must be respected and preserved through restraint.
However, neither Xiong nor Liang
was able to sustain an argument in favor of a nonanthropocentric, not to
mention eco-friendly, ethic. The modernist trajectory was so powerful that
Confucian humanism was profoundly reconfigured toward a secular humanism. The
rules of the game determining the relevance of Confucianism to China’s modern
transformation were changed so remarkably that most attempts to present a
Confucian idea for its own sake were ignored outside a small coterie of
ivory-tower academicians. Thus the goals of modernization and economic
development overrode broader humanistic and communitarian concerns.
As Amartya Sen and others have
argued, however, it is now clear that the modernization process, used simply
for utilitarian ends of development, is insufficient for the full range of
human flourishing.21
Instead, there is a broader understanding emerging that development must
include not only economic indicators but consider human well-being,
environmental protection, and spiritual growth as well. To this end, there is a
growing awareness in the world community of the need to develop a more
comprehensive global ethic for sustainable development.22
This coalesced in the “Earth Charter” that was developed over the last decade
since the United Nations Earth Summit was held in Rio in 1992.23
An international committee spent three years drafting the charter before its
formal release by the Earth Charter Commission at a meeting in Paris in 2000.
Hundreds of consultations were held with organizations and individuals
throughout the world to ensure that it would be an inclusive people’s charter.
The charter sets forth principles of ecological integrity, social justice,
democracy, nonviolence, and peace.
The Earth Charter enjoins us to
“respect Earth and life in all its diversity,” “care for the community of life
with understanding, compassion, and love,” and “secure Earth’s bounty and
beauty for present and future generations.”24
As the charter puts it, “humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth,
our home, is alive with a unique community of life.” For Confucians, the
“community of life” is expressed as consanguinity between the earth and
ourselves, because we have evolved from the same vital energy that makes
stones, plants, and animals integral parts of the cosmos. We live with
reverence and a sense of awe for the fecundity and creativity of nature as we
open our eyes to what is near at hand.
When measured against these
principles of a global ethic for sustainability, a narrowly conceived
modernization process such as China’s is inadequate. This critique is an
important external counterpoint to modernization within an Enlightenment
framework.
If China’s modernist project had
followed the democratic ideal of building a society that is “just,
participatory, sustainable, and peaceful,”25
as formulated in the Earth Charter, it could have had a salutary effect on
China’s overall conception of development. A counterfactual exercise is in
order. Surely the global issues mentioned in the Earth Charter are far from
being resolved in the modern West, but had they been put on the national agenda
for discussion in China, the Chinese intellectual ethos could have been much
more congenial to the culture of peace and environmental ethics. After all,
“eradicating poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative”26
and promoting human flourishing as well as material progress are both socialist
and Confucian ideals. Although “upholding the right of all, without
discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human
dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being”27
may appear to be a lofty goal, it is compatible with the Chinese notion of
realizing the whole person. Furthermore, “affirming gender equality and equity
as prerequisites to sustainable development” and “ensuring universal access to
education, health care, and economic opportunity”28
are clearly recognized modern Chinese aspirations. The traditional Confucian
sense of economic equality, social conscience, and political responsibility
could have been relevant to and significant for debate and conversation on
these vitally important matters. The cost of the secularization of Confucian
humanism was high. The single-minded commitment to progress defined in
materialist terms has substantially confined the scope of the national agenda
to wealth and power. As China completely turned her back on her indigenous
resources for self-realization, she embarked on a course of action detrimental
to her soul and her long-term self-interest.
CONFUCIAN HUMANISM AS AN ANTHROPOCOSMIC VISION
Qian, Tang, and Feng saw the potential for Confucian
humanism to occupy a new niche in comparative civilizational studies. As a
partner in the dialogue among civilizations, what message can Confucians
deliver to other religious communities and to the global village as a whole? To
put it simply, can Confucian humanism informed by the anthropocosmic vision
deepen the conversation on religion and ecology? Specifically, can the
Confucian self-cultivation philosophy inspire a new constellation of family
values, social ethics, political principles, and ecological consciousness that
will help cultural China develop a sense of responsibility for the global
community, both for its own benefit and for the improvement of the state of the
world? Can Confucian thinkers enrich the spiritual resources and broaden the
Enlightenment project’s scope to embrace religion and ecology?
The idea of the unity of Heaven
and humanity implies four inseparable dimensions of the human condition: self,
community, nature, and Heaven. The full distinctiveness of each enhances,
rather than impedes, a harmonious integration of the others. Self as a center
of relationships establishes its identity by interacting with community
variously understood, from the family to the global village and beyond. A
sustainable harmonious relationship between the human species and nature is not
merely an abstract ideal, but a concrete guide for practical living. Mutual
responsiveness between the human heart-and-mind and the Way of Heaven is the
ultimate path for human flourishing. The following four salient features
constitute the substance of the New Confucian ecological vision.
Fruitful Interaction between Self
and Community
Since the community as home must extend to the “global
village” and beyond, the self in fruitful interaction with community must
transcend not only egoism and parochialism, but also nationalism and
anthropocentrism. In practical ethical terms, self-cultivation is crucial to
the viability of this holistic humanist vision. Specifically, it involves a
process of continuous self-transcendence, always keeping sight of one’s solid
ground in earth, body, family, and community. Through self-cultivation, the
human heart-and-mind “expands in concentric circles that begin with oneself and
spread from there to include successively one’s family, one’s face-to-face
community, one’s nation, and finally all humanity.”29
In shifting the center of one’s
empathic concern from oneself to one’s family, one rises above selfishness. The
move from family to community prevents nepotism. The move from community to
nation overcomes parochialism, and the move to all humanity counters
chauvinistic nationalism.30
While “[t]he project of becoming fully human involves transcending,
sequentially, egoism, nepotism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinist
nationalism,” it cannot stop at “isolating, self-sufficient humanism.”31
If we stop at secular humanism, our arrogant self-sufficiency will undermine
our cosmic connectivity and constrain us in an anthropocentric predicament.
A Sustainable Harmonious Relationship
between the Human Species and Nature
The problem with secular humanism is its self-imposed
limitation. Under its influence, our obsession with power and mastery over the
environment—to the exclusion of the spiritual and the natural realms—has made
us blind to ecological concerns.32
An ecological focus is a
necessary corrective to the modernist discourse that has reduced the Confucian
worldview to a limited and limiting secular humanism. Confucianism,
appropriated by the modernist mindset, has been misused as a justification for
authoritarian polity. Only by fully incorporating the religious and naturalist
dimensions into New Confucianism can the Confucian worldview avoid the danger
of legitimating social engineering, instrumental rationality, linear
progression, economic development, and technocratic management at the expense
of a holistic, anthropocosmic vision. Indeed, the best way for the Confucians
to attain the new is to reanimate the old, so that the digression to secular
humanism, under the influence of the modern West, is not a permanent diversion.
Mutual Responsiveness between the
Human Heart-and-Mind and the
Way of Heaven
In the appeal of scientists at the Global Forum
Conference in Moscow in 1990, religious and spiritual leaders were challenged
to envision the human-Earth relationship in a new light:
| |
As scientists, many of us have had profound
experiences of awe and reverence before the universe. We understand that what
is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and respect. Our
planetary home should be so regarded. Efforts to safeguard and cherish the
environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred.33 |
Obviously, the ecological question compels all religious
traditions to reexamine their presuppositions in regard to the earth. It is not
enough that one’s spiritual tradition makes limited adjustments to accommodate
the ecological dimension. The need is for none other than the sacralization of
nature. This may require a fundamental restructuring of basic theology by
requiring the sanctity of the earth as a given. Implicit in the scientists’
appeal is the necessity of a new theology, adding nature as a factor that must
enter into, and transform, the traditional understandings of the relationship
between God and human beings.
For the New Confucians, the
critical issue is to underscore the spiritual dimension of the harmony with
nature. As Wing-tsit Chan notes in his celebrated Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy, “If one word could characterize the
entire history of Chinese philosophy, that word would be humanism—not the
humanism that denies or slights a Supreme Power, but one that professes the
unity of man and Heaven. In this sense, humanism has dominated Chinese thought
from the dawn of its history.”34
The “humanism that professes the
unity of man and Heaven” is neither secular nor anthropocentric. While it fully
acknowledges that we are embedded in earth, body, family, and community, it
never denies that we are in tune with the cosmic order. To infuse our earthly,
bodily, familial, and communal existence with a transcendent significance is
not only a lofty Confucian ideal but also a basic Confucian practice. In
traditional China, under the influence of Confucian thought, Daosist ritual,
and folk belief, the imperial court, the capital city, literary temples,
ancestral halls, official residences, schools, and private houses were designed
according to the “wind and water” (fengshui) principles. While these
principles, based on geomancy, can supposedly be manipulated to enhance one’s
fortune, they align human designs with the environment by enhancing intimacy
with nature. Similarly, Chinese medicine as healing rather than curing and the
mental and physical exercises such as the ritual dance of the great ultimate (taijinqun)
and various forms of breathing disciplines (qigong) are also
based on the mutual responsiveness between nature and humanity.
Self-Knowledge and Cultivation
to Complete the Triad
Confucians believe that Heaven confers our human nature
and that the Way of Heaven is accessible through self-knowledge. They also
believe that to understand the Mandate of Heaven we must continuously cultivate
ourselves. This is completing the triad of Heaven, Earth, and humans. Nature,
as an unending process of transformation rather than a static presence, is a
source of inspiration for us to understand Heaven’s dynamism. As the first
hexagram in the Book of Change symbolizes, Heaven’s
vitality and creativity is incessant: Heaven always proceeds vigorously. The
lesson for humans is obvious: we emulate the constancy and sustainability of
Heaven’s vitality and creativity by participating in human flourishing through
“ceaseless effort of self-strengthening.”35
The sense of “awe and reverence before the universe” is prompted by our
aspiration to respond to the ultimate reality that makes our lives purposeful
and meaningful. From either a creationist or an evolutionist perspective, we
are indebted to “Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things” for our existence. To
repay this debt we cultivate ourselves so as to attain our full humaneness
amidst the wonder of existence.
Mencius succinctly articulated
this human attitude toward Heaven as self-knowledge, service, and steadfastness
of purpose:
| |
When a man has given full realization to his
heart, he will understand his own nature. A man who knows his own nature will
know Heaven. By retaining his heart and nurturing his nature he is serving
Heaven. Whether he is going to die young or to live to a ripe old age makes no
difference to his steadfastness of purpose. It is through awaiting whatever is
to befall him with a perfected character that he stands firm on his proper
destiny.36 |
Self-realization, in an ultimate sense, depends on
knowing and serving Heaven. The mutuality of the human heart-and-mind and the
Way of Heaven is mediated by cultivating a harmonious relationship with nature.
Through such cultivation, humans form a triad with Heaven and Earth and thus
fully realize their potential as cosmological as well as anthropological
beings. This sense of mutuality, achieved through completion of the triad,
precludes the imposition of the human will on Heaven and transforms the human
desire to conquer nature.
SUSTAINING THE ECOLOGICAL TURN: THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
INTELLECTUAL
The Copenhagen Social Summit in 1995 identified poverty,
unemployment, and social disintegration as three serious threats to the
solidarity of the human community. Globalization intensifies and enhances the
felt need for rootedness in primordial ties. Our community, compressed into a
“village,” far from being integrated, blatantly exhibits differentiation and
outright discrimination.37
For developing societies such as China to appreciate the environmental
movements of the developed world, the contradiction between ecological and
developmental imperatives will have to be resolved. The ecological advocacy of
elegant simplicity is not persuasive if one considers development, in the basic
material sense, a necessary condition for survival. Only if China comes to feel
a responsibility not just for nation-building but for nature itself can China
become a constructive partner on global environmental issues. She could be
encouraged to do so if the developed world, especially the United States,
demonstrates moral leadership. Without encouragement and reciprocal respect
from developed countries, it is unlikely that she will independently embark on
such a path. Fortunately, mutually beneficial dialogues on religion and ecology
between China and the United States have already begun.
The ecological turn, as an
alternative vision, is particularly significant in this regard. To make it
sustainable and, eventually, consequential in formulating policies, the need
for public-spiritedness among intellectuals is urgent. The emergence of a
public space in cultural China provides a glimmer of hope. Although
full-fledged civil societies in the Chinese cultural universe are found only in
Taiwan and Hong Kong, the horizontal communication among public intellectuals
in several sectors of society in the People’s Republic has generated a new
dynamism unprecedented in modern Chinese history. If we define public
intellectuals as those who are politically concerned, socially engaged,
culturally sensitive, religiously sensitive, and ecologically conscientious,
they are readily visible and audible on the political scene.38
Indeed, public intellectuals in academia, government, mass media, business, and
society are articulating a variety of ecological and spiritual messages
relevant to China’s quest to join the modern world. The New Confucians may
never “find the unifying thread, the balancing mean, the underlying value, or
the all-embracing conception”39
that can serve as a standard of inspiration for all concerned citizens of the
nation. However, they are strategically positioned to generate new
discussions on the ecological way “as macrocosm, overarching unity, and
ultimate process”; indeed, as a necessary reference for “the human enterprise
in its fullest dimensions, deepest reflections, and most dynamic activity.”40
Given the current political
climate in China, religion is a particularly delicate matter. Whether religion
will play an active role in shaping China’s development strategy is not yet
clear. The possibility of a sound environmental ethic depends heavily on the
ability of Chinese intellectuals to transcend a narrow nationalism informed by
secular humanism and their willingness to take religion seriously in
considering human integrity and self-fulfillment. The government’s appeal to
science and national security as a way of outlawing superstition, as in the
case of the Falungong, has not been effective in dealing with the outpouring of
religious sentiments throughout the country. Its technocratic approach to
religious issues merely reflects an increasingly unworkable instrumental
rationality. Religion as a vibrant social force is widely recognized by public
intellectuals in government, academia, business, and the mass media. Although
it is difficult to predict precisely how religious and ecological discourses
will converge in China, tolerance of religion often entails sensitivity to
ecology. When public intellectuals in China begin to appreciate the profound
religious implications of the ecological turn and the importance of retrieving
and reappropriating indigenous spiritual resources to develop an environmental
ethic, they will be ready to take part in a dialogue among civilizations
concerning religion and ecology.
In a broader context, for
religious and spiritual leaders to play a significant global role in
articulating a shared approach to environmental degradation, they must assume
the responsibility of public intellectuals themselves. As the Millennium
Conference at the United Nations in September of 2000 clearly showed, unless
religious and spiritual leaders can rise above their communities of faith to
address global issues as public intellectuals, their messages will be misread,
distorted, or ignored. China is particularly suspicious of the intentions of
religious and spiritual leaders if they are exclusively concerned about the
well-being of their own communities. Yet the time is ripe for spiritual and
religious leaders outside China to engage Chinese public intellectuals in
mutually informative and inspirational conversations on religion and ecology.
The New Confucian ecological turn
clearly shows that a sustainable human-Earth relationship will depend on the
creation of harmonious societies and benevolent governments through the
self-cultivation of all members of the human community. At the same time,
Confucians insist that being attuned to the changing patterns in nature is
essential for harmonizing human relationships, formulating family ethics, and
establishing a responsive and responsible government. As Mary Evelyn Tucker
notes: “The whole Confucian triad of heaven, earth, and humans rests on a
seamless yet dynamic intersection between each of these realms. Without harmony
with nature and its myriad changes, human society and government is
threatened.”41
Since each person’s self-cultivation is essential for social and political
order, the public intellectual is not an elitist, but an active participant in
the daily affairs of his or her society. The Confucian idea of the concerned
scholar may benefit from the wisdom of a philosopher, the insight of a prophet,
the faith of a priest, the compassion of a monk, or the understanding of a
guru, but it is the responsibility of the public intellectual that is the most
appropriate to the embodiment of this idea. The Confucians remind us that, in
order to foster a wholesome worldview and a healthy ecological ethic, we need
to combine our aspiration for a harmonious relationship with nature with our
concerted effort to build a just society.
Public intellectuals in China
should impress upon the political leadership that it is in an advantageous
position to “promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace,”42
as recommended by the Earth Charter. They should recognize that since the
Chinese people are well disposed to Mahayana Buddhism and religious Daoism as
well as inclusive Confucian humanism, they can appreciate the value of the
coexistence of Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things and can “treat all living
beings with respect and consideration”43
as an expression of their humanity. Furthermore, as an increasing number of
public intellectuals in the academic community have already forcefully
articulated their ecological concerns, they should be encouraged to “integrate
into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills
needed for a sustainable way of life.”44
Many liberal-minded public intellectuals have openly suggested that the major
challenge in Chinese political culture is democratization at all levels, which
must begin with greater transparency and accountability in governance at the
top. As the rule of law, rather than the rule by law, is widely accepted as the
legitimate way to provide access to justice for all, the ideal of “inclusive
participation in decision making”45
is no longer unimaginable.
New Confucians fully acknowledge
that in their march toward modernization in the cause of nation-building, their
primary language has been so fundamentally reconstructed that it is no longer a
language of faith, but a language of instrumental rationality, economic
efficiency, political expediency, and social engineering. They are now
recovering from that mistake. Their reanimated anthropocosmic vision may
inspire a new worldview and a new ethic. This ecological turn has great
significance for China’s spiritual self-definition, for it urges the nation to
rediscover its soul. It also has profound implications for the sustainable
future of the global community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Rosanne Hall, Lucia Huntington, Ron
Suleski, and Mary Evelyn Tucker for searching criticisms of and editorial
suggestions on earlier drafts of this essay.
ENDNOTES
| 1 |
For a contemporary discussion on the axial-age
civilizations, see Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, ed., The Origins and
Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (Albany,
N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1986). Back
to Text |
| 2 |
See Tu Wei-ming, “Embodying the Universe: A
Note on Confucian Self-realization,” World & I (August
1989): 475–485. Back
to Text |
| 3 |
Qian Mu’s last essay, “Zhongguo wenhua dui
rennei weilai keyou di kongxian” (The Possible Contribution of Chinese Culture
to the Future of Humankind), first appeared as a newspaper article in United
News in Taiwan (26 September 1990). It was reprinted, with a lengthy
commentary by his widow, Hu Meiqi, in Zhongguo Wenhua (Chinese
Culture) 4 (August 1991): 93–96. Back
to Text |
| 4 |
For an elaborate discussion on this, see Tang
Junyi, Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie (Life
Existence and the Spiritual Realms) (Taipei: Xuesheng Book Co., 1977), 872–888. Back
to Text |
| 5 |
Feng Youlan, Zhongguo xiandai zhexueshi
(History of Modern Chinese Philosophy) (Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s
Publishers, 1999), 251–254. Back
to Text |
| 7 |
For example, Ji Xianlin of Peking University,
Li Shengzi of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Cai Shangsi of Fudan
University, and a number of other senior scholars all enthusiastically
responded to Qian’s article. My short reflection appeared in Zhonghua Wenhua
(Chinese Culture) 10 (August 1994): 218–219. Back
to Text |
| 8 |
Max Weber, The Religion of
China: Confucianism and Taoism, trans. Hans
H. Gerth (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1951), 235. Back
to Text |
| 9 |
Tang Junyi, Shengming cuizai yu
xinling jingjie, 833–930. Back
to Text |
| 10 |
Chang Tsai (Zhang Zai), “The Western
Inscription,” in Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1963), 497. Back
to Text |
| 11 |
Feng Youlan, “Xin yuanren” (New Origins
of Humanity) in Zhenyuan liushu (Six Books of Feng Youlan in the
1930s and 1940s) (Shanghai: Eastern Chinese Normal University Press, 1996),
vol. II, 626–649. Back
to Text |
| 12 |
Wang Yangming (Wang Yang-ming), “Inquiry on the
Great Learning,” in Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in
Chinese Philosophy, 659.
Back to Text |
| 13 |
Ibid., 659–660. Since Wang Yangming wished to
demonstrate that the mind of the small man can form one body with all things as
well, he used “he” rather than “we” in the text.
Back to Text |
| 14 |
Joseph Levenson, Confucian China and
its Modern Fate: A Trilogy (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968).
Back to Text |
| 15 |
The “Text” of The Great Learning.
Although I have made a few changes in my translation, it basically follows
Wing-tsit Chan’s version. See Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book
in Chinese Philosophy, 86.
Back to Text |
| 16 |
Wm. Theodore de Bary, “‘Think Globally, Act
Locally,’ and the Contested Ground Between,” in Confucianism and Ecology:
The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth,
and Humans, ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Berthrong
(Cambridge, Mass.: Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity
School, 1998), 32. Back
to Text |
| 18 |
Zhongyong (Doctrine of the Mean), XXII.
See Tu Wei-ming, Centrality and Commonality: An
Essay on Confucian Religiousness (Albany, N.Y.:
State University of New York Press, 1989), 77. This translation is slightly
different from Wing-tsit Chan’s version, cited in the book.
Back to Text |
| 19 |
Xiong Shili, Xin Weishilun (New
Theory on Consciousness-Only) (reprint, Taipei: Guangwen Publishers, 1962),
vol. I, chap. 4, 49–92. Back
to Text |
| 20 |
Liang Shuming, Dongxi wenhua jiqi
zhexue (Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies) (reprint,
Taipei: Wenxue Publishers, 1979), 200–201.
Back to Text |
| 21 |
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom
(New York: Knopf, 1999). Back
to Text |
| 22 |
See Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel, eds., A
Global Ethic: The Declaration of the
Parliament of the World’s Religions (New
York: Continuum, 1993). Back
to Text |
| 29 |
Huston Smith, The World’s Religions
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 182. Back
to Text |
| 32 |
See Thomas Berry, The Dream of
the Earth (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990) and Brian
Swimme, The Universe Story: From the Primordial
Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era—A
Celebration of the Unfolding of the
Cosmos (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).
Back to Text |
| 33 |
Quoted in Mary Evelyn Tucker, “The Emerging
Alliance of Religion and Ecology,” in Steven L. Chase, ed., Doors of
Understanding: Conversations on Global Spirituality
in Honor of Ewert Cousins (Quincy, Ill.:
Franciscan Press, 1997), 111. Back
to Text |
| 34 |
Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book
in Chinese Philosophy, 3. Back
to Text |
| 35 |
The Book of Change,
“image” of the first hexagram, qian (heaven). Back
to Text |
| 36 |
Mencius, VIIA:1. See D. C. Lau, trans., Mencius
(Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1970), 182. My translation of the first line
is different. Back
to Text |
| 37 |
Tu Weiming, “Global Community as Lived Reality:
Exploring Social Resources for Development,” in Social Policy &
Social Progress, Special Issue on the Social Summit, Copenhagen,
6–12 March 1995 (New York: United Nations, 1996), 47–48.
Back to Text |
| 38 |
The case of Qu Geping merits special attention.
Since the Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972, he has been
instrumental in developing an infrastructure within the governmental system for
dealing with environmental protection in China. As chairman of the
Environmental Protection and Resource Conservation Committee of the National
People’s Congress, he plays a pivotal role in formulating national policies and
encourages nongovernmental agencies in raising environmental concerns. For a
retrospective look at his own career, see Qu Geping, mengxian yu qidai:
Zhongguo huanjing baofu di guoqu yu
weilai (Dreams and Anticipations: The Past and Future of China’s
Environmental Protection) (Beijing: Zhongguo huanbao kexue chubanshe, 2000). Back
to Text |
| 39 |
Wm. Theodore de Bary, Neo-Confucian
Orthodoxy and the Learning of the
Mind-and-Heart (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1981), 216. Back
to Text |
| 40 |
Ibid. It should be noted that although de
Bary’s main concern here is the Way in the “learning of the mind-and-heart,”
the ecological implications are self-evident.
Back to Text |
| 41 |
Mary Evelyn Tucker, “The Emerging Alliance of
Religion and Ecology,” in Chase, ed., Doors of Understanding,
120. Back
to Text |
| 44 |
Ibid. Currently more than a hundred programs
(including departments and research centers) focusing on the environment have
been developed in China’s institutes of higher learning. While the majority of
these programs are primarily concerned with technical engineering issues, quite
a few of them have integrated subjects in the social sciences and the
humanities in their multidisciplinary approaches to environmental protection.
Back to
Text |
|
|
|
|
©
2001 by The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
|
|
|
|
|