The Disparity between Confucian and Daoist Scholars on Politics

By: Daniel de Kok

For: Danielle Lefebvre

Chinese religion is concerned with identifying social values that ensure harmony and prosperity. Daoist and Confucian scholars consider politics to be a topic of utmost significance since political activity affects the well-being of the individual and community.1 Both religions regard moral awareness to be the key characteristic of a successful ruler;2 however, they differ in the types of power-assertion they condemn and endorse. Both Daoist and Confucian scholars, however, agree that power-assertion is necessary to achieve harmony and prosperity, and yet exalt dissimilar styles of rule. It is due to the philosophical standpoints of Daoist and Confucian scholars that lead to this disagreement.

Literary Daoism is rooted in the daodejing, which describes the philosophical system of Laozi, the author.3 “His text has two primary concerns: the Way (dao) and Virtue or Power (de), which is connected with its manifest operations. The dao is described as a universal, forced, subtle and omnipresent, that gives rise to all things and provides their sustenance. “ (Fieser and Powers, 182) The dao, then, is a system of phenomenology that Laozi claims to be providing a pattern for the growth and development of living things. (Fieser and Powers, 182) In the daodejing, Laozi proposes a way of approaching the pattern of the world and using it to one’s own advantage. The dao “tends toward harmony and balance, and whenever any part of a natural system develops extreme qualities, the imbalance triggers a corresponding backlash.” (Fieser and Powers, 182) This system rule acts dialectically to impose a counterbalance to extremes. For example, if consumption of grain increases dramatically, either a ruler must react in one of two ways: increase supply or let people go hungry. Therefore, by judging the dao of the grain supply, a ruler would react to the imbalance of the world by balancing it properly, a mark of a successful Daoist and ruler. By ignoring the dao of the grain supply and not rectifying the balance and harmony of the demand for grain, a ruler would not be following the dao and would not be a successful ruler. The bigger the problem, such as a complete shortage of all available food, would necessarily entail a larger imbalance and a larger, more drastic solution to solve the problem: “Imbalances in nature are corrected by automatic reaction, and the more extreme the imbalance, the more powerful will be the reaction.” (Fieser and Powers, 182) In the word of Laozi in the daodejing:

“The Dao does nothing

Yet through it everything is done.

If kings and princes could hold to it,

The world would be transformed of its own accord.

While transformed, beings wish to engage in action.

Then there will be no desire.

Absence of desire is tranquility,

And the world becomes peaceful of its own accord. “ (Fieser and Powers, 195)

In other words, if kings and princes followed the dao, desire would end and the world would become peaceful. Laozi describes what following the dao exactly entails for day-to-day behaviour for all individuals, and not just rulers:

“Near the Dao.

Live in goodness;

Keep your mind deep;

Treat others with kindness;

Keep your word;

Do what is right;

Work at the proper time; “(Fieser and Powers, 191)

Following the dao entails treating others with kindness and doing what is right. This in itself naturally acts to maintain the balance of the dao and sustains harmony between extremes, such as immoral actions and unjust scruples. All it takes to be a successful ruler, then, is to balance the extremes of the conditions of the environment by being a good, just ruler who treats his subjects with kindness and consideration, and who reacts to imbalances through effective counterbalances in an effort to promote harmony and prosperity. For example, if food was sparse, he would increase production; conversely, if food was plentiful, he would decrease or increase exportation. A country would not specialize heavily in any particular industry, but would however maintain a solid balance between agriculture, military, and trade, to the extent that it remains relative to its needs. A Daoist scholar would approve of a ruler who reacts to things quickly and efficiently, who treats others with kindness and does not attempt to excel too vigorously in economics and conquest, but instead takes a slow and steady promotion of tranquility and stability.

Confucian scholars, however, hold contrary opinions on rulers. Unlike Daoists, Confucianism is concerned with rectifying the purity of individuals that serve as role models for the population.4 According to Confucius, people naturally emulate morally superior individuals. “Society, according to Confucius, is perfected by such people, who set a moral standard that subtly motivates others to correct themselves in order to emulate them.” (Fieser and Powers, 155) A quote attributed to Confucius says for us to “raise the straight and set them over the crooked.5 This can make the crooked straight. ” (Fieser and Powers, 166) Just as Laozi articulates his dao of the Power, Confucianism articulates the dao of the junzi, or nobleman, who embodies the qualities of a good human being, and who acts as a role model to straighten the crooked.

Confucius believed humans were, by nature, good, and that they naturally tended toward the good even if they are not aware of it. 6 Laozi, however, described the new-born human to be like a blank block of wood, an eerily similar metaphor in both content and form to Lockes tabula rasa theory, or blank slate metaphor, which contends that human nature is purely malleable, and no one is born good or bad. 78 Similar to the British materialist, Laozi said that moral awareness must be impressed upon the individual, and should be nurtured like a plant.9 Because of Confucianism’s understanding of the nature of the individual, it differs with Daoism on the desirability of certain qualities for rulers. Confucianism, since it believes individuals are naturally good and tend towards goodness, require a superior individual, a junzi, to emulate. This is quite similar to Laozis understanding of how goodness is nurtured in the individual by his environment. However, Confucianism’s concept of a successful ruler would be a junzi capable of captivating and inspiring his people. A ruler’s image, then, because the centerpiece of Confucian scholars decision on whether or not they make a successful ruler.

An example of two contrasting rulers will illustrate of philosophical disagreement between the Confucian and Daoist schools of thought. A king who rules by charm and vocal elegance, displays of wealth and gregarious generosity, militaristic muscle and fear, would appeal to a Confucius scholar on the basis of his ability to rectify his subjects who emulate his behaviour. However, Daoist scholars would instead consider the rulers deeds and reactions to imbalances in the environment and extremes in economics and class disparity. His aptitude to maintain political order, rather than his ability to manipulate his subjects, would be the Daoist scholars point of interest in judging a ruler’s ability.

While Daoism and Confucianism hold many similarities due to their shared lineage and shared cultural roots of ancient China.10 Their differences lie in their perspectives on human nature. Whereas Confucianism considers humans to be inherently good, naturally emulating superior individuals who direct the flow of the population, Daoism suggests that there is an all-pervasive standard of behaviour, the dao, which acts as a dialectic corrections system that balances extremes in behaviour. By tapping into this mode of behaviour, rulers are able to successfully maintain prosperity and peace. Despite these differences, however, both Confucius and Laozi would agree that benevolence and treating subjects with respect and consideration to be the most important virtue of a ruler.

Bibliography

Eller, Cynthia. Revealing World Religions, 2.1 ed. South Orange, NJ: Thinking Strings,

2003.

Fieser, James and John Powers. Scriptures of the World’s Religions, 3rd ed. Avenue of Americans, New York, NY:McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Lefebvre, Daniel. Rels 131 Course Notes. Kingston: Queens University, 2008.

Sabine, G.H. A History of Political Theory, 3rd Britain: George G. Harrap,

1968.

1 Fieser and Powers, 153

2 Fieser and Powers, 166

3 Lefebvre, part 3, 33

4 Fieser and Powers, 166

5 Fieser and Powers, 153

6 Fieser and Powers, 164

7 Lefebvre, part 3, 32

8 Sabine, 354

9 Lefebvre, part 3, 32

10 Ibid.