Chapter 3
PROPRIETY AND RIGHTNESS: A SOCIAL ORGANIC ETHICS
Historians frequently attempt to characterize the main organizing theme of a society or even an entire civilization, whether it is their own or some other time and place. Sometimes a single word appears to suffice. “Li ( 禮 ), as propriety or rite, has had a central role in Chinese philosophy, culture and history.” 1
The Chinese people used to take pride in the fact that they were “the country of Li and I” ( 禮義之邦 ).This was said with an air of self-sufficiency. The Chinese contrasted their refined culture with they considered the barbarism of other countries. They assumed they had attained the pinnacle of virtue. For many centuries, the principle of Li became the self-image of the people of China, to the extent of its representing the country’s collective soul.
Since Confucian philosophy is a philosophy for living, its vocabulary has to be dealt with in life situations.
What, then, does this term Li actually mean? Some history of Chinese culture will be useful here. According to Mencius’s view, before the ancient Sage King Yao’s time (c. 2255 B.C.), neither nature nor beasts had yet been tamed. The land had not been cultivated, let alone become civilized. Human nature was still undeveloped. During Yao’s reign an agricultural and administrative society was properly established. The next Sage King, Shun, turned his attention to the need of educating the people in Li:
Men possess a moral nature; and if they are well fed, warmly clad, or comfortably lodged, without being taught at the same time, they become almost like beasts. This was a subject of anxious solicitude to the Sage Shun, and he appointed Hsieh to be the Minister of Instruction, to teach the relation of humanity: -- how, between father and son, there should be affection; between sovereign and minister, righteousness; between husband and wife, attention to their separate functions; between old and young, a proper order; and between friends fidelity. The highly meritorious Sovereign said to him, “Encourage them; lead them on; rectify them; straighten them; help them; give them wings: -- thus causing them to become possessors of themselves. Then follow this up by stimulating them and conferring benefits on them.” 2
From then on, Li was adopted as a core curriculum by the state-run educational, religious, and ethical system. In the course of history, it became deeply rooted in the social organism. Thus, “Li is a key to the doors of ethics, politics, and religion; it is a medium that integrates social system, moral behavior and mind.” 3
Li is not superficial manners as modern scholars commonly assume. It is much deeper and more complicated than that. It used to thought of as immutable principles ( 禮者，理之不可易者也 ). People also called it by compound terms: “Li-chiao,” and “Li-fa” ( 禮教 禮法 ), which shows its dual identity as both pseudo-religion and pseudo-law. Confucius says: “Look not at what is contrary to propriety (Li); listen not to what is contrary to propriety (Li); speak not what is contrary to propriety (Li); make no movement which is contrary to propriety (Li)” 4 The concept he advocates here is a life according to Li and purifying whatever deed is contrary to Li.
Now, as for the word I ( 義 ) linked with Li: it means justice or rightness. Having I is “to act up to the standard” ( 宜 ). The prime meaning of the key Greek word hamartia, in Western Christian tradition, is “missing the mark”; therefore it became a condition of sin. In contrast, I implies right on the mark; therefore it is correctness or righteousness. When applied to human behavior, it means how one acts fittingly. “Righteousness is the way, and propriety is the door,” Mencius says, “but it is only the superior man who can follow this way, and go out and in by this door.” 5 This means I is the manifestation of the superior man’s benevolence or humanity.
I is something close to the “golden mean.” It is rather difficult to understand except from its opposite meanings. The word Jen is a similar case. When asked about it, Confucius would not give a direct definition. His answers are related to the inquirer’s position.
Jen is the ideal man or the norm of what a man should be…. Jen is the key virtue of all virtues. In the Analects, when the students asked about jen, Confucius told them to act according to their individuals characters…. For example, when Yen Yuan asked about it, Confucius said, “To restrain oneself and to return to propriety is jen.” (Analects, XII, 1). When Fan Ch’ih asked about jen, Confucius said, “In private life, be serious; in managing affairs, be respectful; in dealing with others, be loyal. Even if you are living among barbarians, these virtues may not be neglected.” (Analects, XIII, 19.) And when Tzu Chang asked, Confucius said, “One who is able to practice five things can be a man of jen.” Tzu Chang asked what they were, and the Master replied, “Seriousness, generosity, sincerity, earnestness and benevolence.” (Analects, XVII, 6.) All of these virtues are aspects of jen. We may say that jen is to love people and to respect others, but we cannot say that to love people or to respect others is jen; jen is not any one virtue…. Jen is the perfect virtue, its practice is in everyday life. 6
Social Values in Confucianism
In Confucian organic social ethics, to act properly and fittingly means applying one’s action rightly to the interrelation of all elements in society, implying a virtual oneness and a pre-established harmony. Obviously, such a society will offer stability and mental security to its members. On the other hand, if incentive and independence are lost, the society could easily become stiff and stagnant.
For instance, filial piety ( 孝 ) has been considered an important virtue for the Chinese people, equivalent to the Biblical commandment of “Honour thy father and thy mother.” 7 But an ever subservient and obedient attitude toward parents becomes a problem in modern society. Today’s Western culture, at least, presents a very different aspect than the ancient Chinese culture. In many social activities nowadays, people usually do not invite or engage parental participation. When it happens, it is may be at odds with the social norms. In domestic life, even if the old folks share living quarters with their offspring, they are expected to behave like guests. They are definitely not the paterfamilias and super-hosts as parents were in ancient China.
The biggest difficulties occur in the political arena. Unwilling ever to be left by the wayside, a leader frequently assumes the position of emperor for life. When this happens in an agricultural society, where people’s lives go on unchanged for generations, things will usually fare well enough with people putting up with an outdated ruler; one accepts the situation as fate and simply waits for time to take its own course. But this patience is not possible in a society undergoing rapid changes. Allowing an aged, entrenched leader to guide the nation would be like a ship’s crew agreeing to an ancient mariner’s insistence on piloting a computerized aircraft carrier on his own. Anyone could foresee the inevitable disaster.
How does the political dilemma of the outworn ruler or aged parent apply to human relationships in daily life? That is to say, if all parties involved are acting improperly, what function will propriety have? In Chinese organic social ethics, or any other culture with similar systems, propriety means that the society expects everyone to act properly and fittingly: that is, they do what they are expected to do in their particular positions.
If everyone behaves rightly, a harmonious society is achieved, as in this vision of one:
The Duke Ching of Chi, asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, “There is government when the prince is prince, and the minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is son.” 8
Such interrelationships are built upon mutual accordance to actions in kind. In other words, all members in the harmonious society should be fulfill their obligations. Conversely, if one neglects his obligations, misuses or abuses position and power, others will dissolve their own obligations toward him. Thus Mencius warned the Ruler:
When the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard this prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as any other man; when he regards them as ground [dirt] or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy. 9
Then he added that, for this kind of unprincipled prince, no one laments his death: “What mourning can be worn for a robber and an enemy?” 10
In another case, Mencius gave a good lecture to a prince by warning him that,
He who outrages the benevolence [proper to his nature], is called a robber; he who outrages righteousness, is called a ruffian. The robber and ruffian we call a mere fellow. I have heard of the cutting off of the fellow Chau, but I have not heard the putting of a sovereign to death [in his case]. 11
It is remarkable that Mencius apparently said such things directly to princes, courageously evoking regicide as a way of purging evil. Mencius’s concept of moral purification is bold and comprehensive, advanced far ahead of his time, considerably predated the European Puritans’ advocacy of revolt. His justice existed without prejudice; the moral purification he espoused ignored position.
But for the Chinese people ever to execute that kind of political and social purification, what are the standard situational requirements? The book of Mencius often refers to the ancient record of The Shoo King: The Book of Historical Document. In that text, whenever a military expedition took place, almost inevitably the leader would either make a speech or declaration. He used high moral overtones, invoking Heaven’s mandate and calling people to participate in the action -- as by saying: “God has conferred even on the inferior people a moral sense, compliance with which would show their nature invariably right.” 12
Consider the case of King Wu of Chow’s celebrated revolution to overthrow the dynasty of Shang (c. 1122 B.C.). At Meng-tsin he made “The Great Declaration” – stating in his accusation that “ Shou, the king of Shang, does not reverence Heaven above, and inflicts calamities on the people below.” 13 That is to say, by violating the social and political order, Shou also caused cosmic disorder. Clearly, this expressed the concept of the unity of Heaven and Man.
Again, Mencius had King Wu declare that --
The ancients have said, “He who soothes us is our sovereign; he who oppresses us is our enemy.” This solitary fellow Shou, having exercised great tyranny, is your perpetual enemy. 14
Both King T’ang’s and King Wu’s deeds of revolt were exalted by Mencius, who not only whitewashed their acts of usurpation, but praised them, by asserting that execute a “solitary fellow” did not caused regicide, and legitimated their cause by calling it a “just war” of revolution.
Chinese philosophy heavily emphasizes a moral standard, which is based on a tightly knit, interrelated ethics. It is little wonder that people put so much effort on moral purification in the country of Li and I. But as the record shows, it has more success in social tranquility, and much less so in politics.
It is exactly in this sense that Kuan Chung (7th cen. B.C.) asserts, “Li, I, Lien, Chih” ( 禮義廉恥 ) are “the four leading and controlling ropes of a net” to a country. 15 Lien means integrity; chih, shame. To put these four characters together here is to say that everyone is expected to do one’s duty, properly and rightly. If one does not, it is a flaw that tarnishes one’s integrity. And if one has a sense of shame or guilt, he will be subject to purification.
By naming and practicing the concepts of degree and order, these principles entered deeply into the people’s minds. The Chinese followed the same line of thinking in music. The five musical scales and tunes symbolize the five relationships, i.e., sovereign/subject, parent/child, husband/wife, brother/brother, and friend/friend. The Chinese harp’s five strings also symbolize the same, but two extra strings are added as Heaven and Earth, thus completing the Great Harmony again.
When this principle of harmonious order and balance is applied to the healing arts, holistic or integral healing is developed. The body as a whole is perceived as needing a balanced total health. Expectably, the same principle pervades social organic ethics in ancient China.
A most significant domain of moral standards is in the family system, which extends to the clan. One always identifies oneself as part of a certain family, for the glory of “the gate of family, or clan” ( 家門 ), entails much concern. Family exerts an invisible pressure that provides moral backup and obligation. Until recently, the sap of the family tree supplied the glue that held Chinese culture together.
Unfortunately, as in elsewhere in the civilized world, the Chinese family system is disintegrating. With its demise goes a strong ethical value system. Cultural anthropologists generally agree that family membership is essential to the preservation and perpetuation of humanity. It is the basic building block for any social order, without which no culture can endure for long. I believe that the deterioration of the traditional family system ought to be a prime issue in our own society. As the Bible warns, “If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” 16 Home front is the first front. We have to mend the breaches and rebuild the moral foundation. 17
During the past century, China suffered many defeats. They are mostly attributable to foreign military and economic invasions and to internal political strife and corruption. One can scarcely blame the country’s woes on the long procession of Confucian philosophers, despite some defects they had. Quite the contrary: misfortunes from without and within were possibly caused because the Chinese people neglected the Confucian concept of moral purification.
The Confucianists, with few exceptions, were not people who go around philosophizing. They were scholars, literati, and government officials whose main concerns were to transmit the Tao and to put their learning into practice, whether by spoken or written word.
This tradition of practicing a mission in life can be traced as far back as to Confucius. Since Confucianism is a philosophy of living, this mission gets carried along during the course of history, from one generation to the next. When many lives get changed significantly for the better, moral purification of society has occurred.
The T’ang dynasty scholar Han Yu (768-824) is a prominent case of such a missionary of moral transformation. He was a court official who was highly opinionated. An argument with the emperor caused him to be demoted and then banished to a remote southeastern region which was notoriously barbarian. He put his exile into excellent uses. In a few short years, he managed to educate the people there, purify them of their evils, turning the area into a cultured society. Other notable moralists on missions were the Neo-Confucian scholar-philosophers, Chu Hsi and Wang Yang-ming, who achieved similar morally elevating results.
Actually, according to the Chinese, if a particular ethical philosophy does not bring moral purification, it hardly deserves any consideration at all. 18 How and why this moral purification takes place has much to do with the condition of society at the time, as well as the disposition of individuals toward reforming themselves and others for the good of the whole social fabric.
Let us now examine how Chinese philosophers and writers in past centuries combined to induce awareness of interior and exterior conditions that might impel people toward the state of moral purification, inside and outside.
Notes for Chapter 3
1. Yi Wu, Chinese Philosophical Terms. San Francisco: Great Learning Publishing Co., 1990, p. 168.
2. Mencius, III A:4, pp, 251-252.
3. Wu, Philosophical Terms, p. 169.
4. Analects, XII:1, p. 250.
5. Mencius, V B:7, p. 391.
6. Wu, Philosophical Terms, pp. 14-16.
7. Exodus 20:12.
8. Analects, XII:11, p. 256.
9. Mencius, IV B:3, p. 318.
10. Mencius, IV B:3, p. 319.
11. Mencius, I B:8, p. 167.
12. The Shoo King, trans. James Legge. rpt. Shanghai: Oxford Univ. Press, 1949. “The Announcement of T’ang,” III, ii, 2, p. 185.
13. Shoo King, p.284.
14. Shoo King, p. 286.
15. Kuan Tzu, “Shepherding the people.” Kuan Chung (d. 645 B.C.) was the prime minister of Ch’i, whom Confucius greatly admired. q.v. Chan, p. 252.
16. Psalm 11:3.
17. James C. M. Yu, Bible and Family: House Upon a Rock. Berkeley: Evangel Literature, Inc., 1989, pp. 41-44, 273-276.
18. Chang & Wu, chs. 19, 22, 24.