Confucianism and Chinese stagnation

[bogmih]

Was Confucianism (or actually Neo-Confucianism) responsible - at least partially - for China's stagnation in the Late Middle Ages and the Modern period? Yes, no, maybe? And of course why do you think so.

[Alexandru H.]

Until the beginning of the 19th century, China was the most advanced nation in this world. Neoconfucianism had dominated China since the 11th century... Neh, I don't see a real connection...

[Faeelin]

Neo-Confucianism rose to prominence during the Song dynasty, perhaps one of the most dynamic periods in Chinese history.

Any direct correlation seems unlikely.

[Aetius]

Neo-Confucianism was popular in Japan, Korea and Vietnam too. They all had different fates, none of them really similar to each other. The Japanese even argued with the Qing court officials from a neo-confucian perspective to avoid having their ambassadors to kowtow in front of the Qing Emperor.

[bogmih]

I asked the question because of this paragraph:

The Sung Neo-Confucian philosophers, finding a certain purity in the originality of the ancient classical texts, wrote commentaries on them. The most influential of these philosophers was Zhu Xi (1130-1200), whose synthesis of Confucian thought and Buddhist, Taoist, and other ideas became the official imperial ideology from late Sung times to the late 19th century. As incorporated into the examination system, Zhu Xi's philosophy evolved into a rigid official creed, which stressed the one-sided obligations of obedience and compliance of subject to ruler, child to father, wife to husband, and younger brother to elder brother. The effect was to inhibit the societal development of pre-modern China, resulting both in many generations of political, social, and spiritual stability and in a slowness of cultural and institutional change up to the 19th century. Neo-Confucian doctrines also came to play the dominant role in the intellectual life of Korea, Vietnam, and Japan.

http://www.religionfacts.com/chinese...on/history.htm

I don't know too much about China's history, but I believe all its famous inventions (gunpowder, paper, compass etc) were produced before 1200 AD. Is it really just a coincidence that after the adoption of Neo-Confucianism, no further inventions were made in China until the XXth century? Other factors may also be responsable for the slowness of change which characterized China until 1900: the Mongol invasion, for example, was a serious setback.

Another article mentions the differences between Confucianism and the Catholic faith in Korea:

When the community of Catholic believers began to practice openly what they believec~t, there emerged a conflict between the Confucian polity and the small Catholic community over the issue of ancestor worship, the spiritual expression of filial piety. The Roman Catholic believers had abandoned ancestor worship. Filial piety (the loyal and filial relationship between a father and his son), however, was the paradigmatic core value of Chosun society, and the political order was anchored upon this central value. Loyalty to the king (Ch’ung) was based upon filial piety. The Roman Catholic community was thus accused of subverting Confucian society, attacking the central value system of filial piety and showing disloyalty to the political authority of the king.

The Roman Catholic community worshiped the Heavenly Lord (Ch’onju = God) as the sole and supreme authority and as the Creator of heaven and earth, whereas Confucian political authority emaninated from Heaven. The king’s rule was based upon the Heavenly Mandate (Ch’onmyong), whereas the Catholic community lived according to the commandments of the Heavenly Lord. The authority of the Heavenly Lord was directly mediated to the members of the community of Roman Catholic believers, whereas the supreme authority of Heaven was mediated to the king and then to society in a hierarchical order. Therefore, the king was the absolute ruler. He was the one who distributed the benefits or blessings of Heaven to the people. It was the Kyongse Chemin (political economy) of Confucian rule. Roman Catholicism, however, did not develop any specific political thought in the Chosun Dynasty but remained the religious expression of the Heavenly Ruler or Ch’onju.

As for supreme authority, the Heavenly Lord of the Roman Catholic community was the Creator of Heaven, which was the source of authority for the Confucian political order. Socially, Heaven was the basis for maintenance of the Confucian hierarchy, including the social division of Yangban and commoners in Chosun society, whereas the Roman Catholic community believed there was no distinction between Yangban and commoners in the community of the children of Ch’onju.

http://www.daga.org/press/urm/urm4/chap11.htm

In these conditions, maybe Neo-Confucianism, by supporting the existing social order, added stability to the regimes in East Asia, but also a certain degree of conservatism.

[Aetius]

I wouldn't call Neo-confucianism one sided, except for in Japan. Its a paternalistic concept as I see it. The "weaker" party in the relationship has an obligation to obey the "stronger", in turn the "stronger" has an obligation to protect the "weaker". In China it was permitted to rebel against an unjust ruler. In Japan the reciprocity didn't exist, the "weaker" just had the obligation to obey.
That said I am basing this on a discussion of neo-confucianism in a book from the 1940s by Ruth Benedict, so I am not sure how accurate I am.

[Hulaoguan]

Originally Posted by bogmih

In these conditions, maybe Neo-Confucianism, by supporting the existing social order, added stability to the regimes in East Asia, but also a certain degree of conservatism.

Well, like many ideologies that became too successful, neoconfucianism did freeze into dogma in Ming and Qing dynasties. And certainly the imperial state had always support aspects of ideologies that butress their rule ( eg the prescribed roles of father, son, husband, sovereign and subjects) and downplayed aspects of confucianism that did not. ( eg Mencius right to rebel against the oppressve government). Also, one important aspect is that the Ming essentially fixed the format of the imperial examinations to certain aspects of neoconfuciansim under the "Ba Gu wen" format limiting the imagination of countless scholars who took the examinations.

I wouldn't put all the blame on the relative decline of Chinese science and technology, and that of China generally, to neoconfucianism though. This is a large, complex controversial topic. Besides, the Mongol invasions you mentioned, there were no lack of other "culprits" eg the authoritarianism of the Ming government, the turnaway from the sea,the impact of Manchu foreign rule, Qing's decisions to expel the Jesuits, or even involution within Ming/Qing society etc etc.

[Yakman]

Neo-Confucianism of the Song focused on innovation, attempting to adapt Confucius' rather conservative and agrarian ethos to the urban, ocean-going Song states. The Southern Song dynasty had a very difficult problem trying to reconcile Confucius' anti-trade, anti-travel teachings to a south china empire. The Neo-Confucians justified the new state in confucian terms, keeping the message and changing the meaning.

[Hulaoguan]

Originally Posted by Yakman

Neo-Confucianism of the Song focused on innovation, attempting to adapt Confucius' rather conservative and agrarian ethos to the urban, ocean-going Song states. The Southern Song dynasty had a very difficult problem trying to reconcile Confucius' anti-trade, anti-travel teachings to a south china empire. The Neo-Confucians justified the new state in confucian terms, keeping the message and changing the meaning.

I would say that the influence of Buddhism and Taosim on neoconfucianism is much greater. They added a sense of detachment to the worldly goals of changing society which was the main motivation of anybody schooled in traditional confucian education.

Also, the influence of confucianism on anti trade and anti travel had been much exaggerated. It never prevented the growth of commerce under the Sung, Ming and Qing dynasties, the rise of fabulously wealthy merchants who hosted the emperors on their country visits, and the fleets of Chinese junks that carried out an active overseas commerce. China achieved something that was as close to capitalism as you can get by the Sung and Ming. It is just that unlike the ones in the west, neither the state nor the scholar literati were directly involved in these activities.

[Yakman]

I think it had a lot to do with restricting trade in the Ming times--the Confucian scholars were [as they had always been] against the eunuchs, who were supportive of trade. The eventual closure of the Ming state may have had more to do with a nobility that was not interested in financing state-sponsored global trade [yet couldn't create joint stock corporations] than any sort of Confucian v. Trade debate, but it was still there.

In the Qing days, Qianlong's letter to Macartney is clearly influenced by Confucian doctrine.

[Hulaoguan]

Originally Posted by Yakman

In the Qing days, Qianlong's letter to Macartney is clearly influenced by Confucian doctrine.

And also the trade balance. Until the British discovered opium, it is true that a self contained China needed nothing from the west.

[Aetius]

It wasn't the British that discovered opium, it was the Mughals in India that started with it, the British just took over the existing Mughal business.

[Yakman]

Originally Posted by Hulaoguan

And also the trade balance. Until the British discovered opium, it is true that a self contained China needed nothing from the west.

But that doesn't mean that the trade should be closed. Had the trade been opened, it would have resulted in the same thing, specie for chinese goods. That they refused to open trade is evidence of a Confucian belief in self-dependence.

[Hulaoguan]

Originally Posted by Yakman

But that doesn't mean that the trade should be closed. Had the trade been opened, it would have resulted in the same thing, specie for chinese goods. That they refused to open trade is evidence of a Confucian belief in self-dependence.

I agree with you.

Still, as I am not an expert on Confucian doctrines, I am not clear on which aspects of Confucian ( or neoconfucianist) doctrines encourages economic self dependence and are therefore anti trade.

I am also not entirely sure that Qianlong's that particular decision is based on his Confucian worldview.

[Yakman]

he probably just found the english exceptionally strange and arrogant and didn't want anything to do with them.

[Aetius]

Originally Posted by Yakman

But that doesn't mean that the trade should be closed. Had the trade been opened, it would have resulted in the same thing, specie for chinese goods. That they refused to open trade is evidence of a Confucian belief in self-dependence.

The Qing actually destroyed most of their domestic production of opium in Yunnan prior to the opium war, so I am not sure that "self-dependence" is the answer... Trade AFAIK was ok as long it was between unequal parties, i.e. masked as "tribute". The Chinese also tried to reduce foreign competition by insisting all trade should be carried out by junks. IMO they were trying to keep the profits of the trade rather than prevent trade per se.

[Yakman]

But they also had laws restricting the size of junks so that they couldn't travel very far from China.

The Qing recognized opium as a malignant thing, and had carried out a campaign against it--which resulted in the Europeans entering the market as suppliers. There were mandarins in the high court who, previous to the opium war, suggested legalizing opium again, so that the Europeans wouldn't have a foothold in China. That faction lost the fight, but was probably the smarter dog.