On East Asia: Confucianism versus Democracy? (Part I)

This article is the first part in the series “On East Asia”.

Image Credit: Ruofei Lu

By Ruofei Lu. Foreign Affairs.

The founding father of modern Chinese literature, LuXin, criticized imperial Chinese society under Confucianism as “cannibalistic” and that people were subjected to a “slave mentality” in his A Diary of a Madman. Since its publication in 1918, debates on whether Confucianism and modernity can coexist have yet to cease.

Over the past two decades, Eastern Asia’s global influence has reached new heights. K-pop, Japanese cuisine, and Chinese industrial products have become fixtures in everyday life worldwide. But new questions arise as these economic powerhouses increase their global influence. Are these successes based on oppression? How democratic are these countries? Or should we even be asking these ethnocentric questions?

Before commenting on today’s East Asia or the validity of anti-Confucius scholars, we must understand the roots of Confucianism.

Confucianism is a political ideology, social structure, and philosophy that Confucius (c. 551- 479 BC) and his disciples proposed during the Zhou dynasty and the Warring States period. Despite geographic differences and the later influx of Buddhist influence, the ideology is still widely and deeply integrated into East Asia. In today’s terms, Confucius would be an international lobbyist who traveled to different countries to promote his ideas to various governments.

In the following few months, I will publish a series of articles on Confucianism versus democracy in East Asia through the lens of an internationalist and someone who has a deep understanding of both East Asia and the West. The first one will be a general introduction to the debate. The following articles will focus on the cases of modern Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, and Singapore and their relationship with Confucianism. How do these countries adopt Western ideologies or not? How does Confucianism affect East Asia’s social structure, political reality, and international relations? I will also include intersectional debates on education systems, gender inequalities, imperialism, and neo-Confucianism.

The fierce debate between Confucianism and democracy began with the New Culture Movement in China after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in the 1910s. Led by revolutionaries and academics like Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, they published influential magazines, like La Jeunesse (New Youth/新青年), aimed at transforming China’s social structure and political culture based on 德先生 (democracy) and 賽先生 (science) after millennia of Confucianist rule. They saw Confucianism as the roadblock to modern Chinese society and argued that worshiping Confucianism contradicts liberalism.

Confucius advocated for individuals to follow strict ethics codes, including loyalty (忠), filial piety (孝), virtue (仁) and justice (義), and more. These personal and individual moralities will create social harmony and political stability.

In today’s East Asia, these values are still highly prevalent and influential in society and politics. Take the most explicitly practiced virtue in the modern day, filial piety, as an introduction. In The Classics of Filial Piety, it is written,

“According to propriety, there are three unfilial actions: To flatter and bend to the will of one’s parents, leading them into unrighteousness—this is the first unfilial act. When one’s family is poor and parents are aging, to avoid seeking a position of service that could support them—this is the second unfilial act. Not to marry and have no descendants, thus severing the ancestral sacrifices—this is the third unfilial act.”

In a pre-industrial agricultural society, the idea above can be seen as a practical form of social regulation that protects the economy and maintains social harmony. But in today’s society, especially in China, marriage coercion by family members remains strongly present. And the idea of needing descendants to continue the patriarchal bloodline creates extreme sexism and homophobia. Though the one-child policy has ended, a lot of families are still left with one child, and now that they are adults, the social pressure originating from Confucianism continues to affect millions of youths and their future. This hierarchical social regulation often undermines and slows down gender equality efforts in China. For example, it increases the stigma of sexual minorities and leads to the failed legalization of gay marriage.

The idea of filial piety extends beyond social regulation; it further stratified society based on age and gender instead of merit, and created a culture of obedience. In the Book of Rites, written by Confucius’ disciples and scholars, the authors advocated, “At home, she obeys her father; when married, she obeys her husband; if her husband dies, she obeys her son.” There is no equality in such a society under Confucianism. And this regulation leads back to the rhetoric mentioned prior: the obedience and “slave mentality” of the Chinese under Confucianism. This type of slave mentality comes in contact with the other virtue, “loyalty.” Throughout the entire course of Chinese history and today, the virtue of “loyalty” has always been used as a political weapon to control and oppress public dissent, if there is any, as most people voluntarily submit to and obey their rulers.

However, the quotes above are simply selected snapshots of the entire philosophy of Confucianism. Many more dimensions of Confucianism cannot be fully illustrated in a few hundred words, such as Great Unity (大同) – a utopian society with perfect equality and fraternity also mentioned in the Book of Rites. Furthermore, China and Singapore were only able to achieve such robust economies because of this kind of social regulation and culture. Yet, both governments are highly popular amongst their people with little to no internal resentment. Both countries, especially regarding climate change and educational issues, are miles ahead of many Western “democracies” in terms of efficiency and proficiency. So why are they not the democracies we see in the West? Is it simply the hypocrisy of Westerners, or is there more to this debate?

Furthermore, how did countries like Taiwan and South Korea, with confucianism influence, rank tenth and second, respectively, in the Economist Democracy index? Did they abandon all the teachings of Confucius as the early Chinese republicans advocated? Certainly not; so how did a progressive and democratic East Asia come to be? Taiwan’s recent advancement in progressivism will be the topic of the next article.