New Confucianism

Movements in contemporary
Chinese political thought
Liberalism Ai Weiwei Gu Su Qin Hui Xu Jilin Xu Youyu Zhu Xueqin Zhang Weiying Wu Jinglian Liu Xiaobo Fang Fang He Weifang Zhang Qianfan Mao Yushi Li Yinhe
New Conservatism Chen Yuan Wang Huning Gan Yang Jiang Shigong Wu Jiaxiang Xiao Gongqin Zheng Yongnian Hu Xijin
New Confucianism Chen Ming Jiang Qing Kang Xiaoguang Yan Xuetong Daniel A. Bell
New Left Dai Jinhua Gao Mobo Cui Zhiyuan Li Minqi Wang Hui Wang Shaoguang Qiu Zhanxuan Yue Xin
Politics of China Xi Jinping Thought Democracy movements

Following the period of reform and opening-up under Deng Xiaoping after 1978, Confucian thought experienced a revival in mainland China. An emerging current of "Mainland New Confucians", led initially by Jiang Qing, sharply demarcated themselves from the "Overseas New Confucianism" developed by Mou and others. According to Jiang, Confucian thought can be divided into two currents, "Mind Confucianism" and "Political Confucianism".[4]

Confucianism, he posits, has for over a millennium been confined to Mind Confucianism at the expense of Political Confucianism, leaving the true thought of Confucius "mutilated". Jiang argues for the restoration of political legitimacy as a core focus of Confucian thought, for renewed attention to Confucian constitutional structures, and for the establishment of Confucianism as an official state religion.[5]

Other Mainland New Confucians debated a more liberal political attitude to Confucianism. Chen Ming, an academic at the Institute for World Religions in Beijing, took a leading role. [6] Chen wrote that Confucianism faced the task of providing solutions to three major problems of contemporary Chinese society: political reconstruction, cultural identity, and religious faith.[7] While agreeing with Jiang's rejection of the metaphysical emphasis of "Overseas New Confucianism", Chen argues that Confucianism is best seen as a civil religion on American lines, compatible with democracy, and that political life can express a religious aspect without a formal state religion.[8]

Chen distanced himself from several rivals: Mou Zongsan's Confucianism as the "perfect teaching" seemed too informed by emotion; Jiang Qing's notion that China should be a Confucian state that unified the political and religious was too simplistic; Kang Xiaoguang's program to transform Confucianism into a state religion was "hardly applicable".[8][9]

Xiong Shili (1885–1968) is widely regarded as the thinker who laid down the basis for the revival of Confucianism as new Confucianism in the twentieth century.[10] Much of the basis of new Confucianism comes from Xiong's New Doctrine. Proficient in Buddhist classics,[10] Xiong argued that classics of Eastern Philosophy must be integrated in contemporary Chinese philosophy for more solidity.[10] Xiong recognized Buddhism's dark view of human nature, but also recognized that there are brighter sides to human nature. For this reason, he rejected the Buddhist learning of "daily decrease" which dictated that the practice to suppress one's dark nature was necessary.[10]

He arrived at such conclusion after his examination of Classic Confucianism. While Confucianism also examines the negative aspect of human nature, thus the necessity to habituate oneself with ritual, the purpose of the practice of ritual and attainment of ren is not focused on restricting the darker aspects of human nature but developing the "fundamental goodness", i.e., the duan of human beings that Mencius writes of.

In order to incorporate Buddhism with Confucianism as a part of his contemporary Chinese philosophy encompassing various Eastern philosophies, Xiong proposed a correction of Buddhist learning of daily decrease. Xiong understood the basis behind "daily decrease" to be Buddhism's metaphysical belief of the "unbridgeable split between an absolute unchanging reality (Dharma-nature or fa-xing), and a constantly changing and conditional phenomenal world (Dharma-characters or fa-xing) (Xiong, 1994, pp. 69–77, 84–5, 111–12).[10]

Jiyuan Yu, in his examination of Xiong, describes this as the "Separation theory". Meanwhile, Xiong's theory behind correcting the "daily decrease" rested heavily upon what Yu describes as the "Sameness Thesis".[10] Xiong, in his New Doctrine, calls this Dharma-nature ti and Dharma-characters yong. Xiong argues that unlike how Buddhism perceives these two worlds, these two worlds are a unity. Xiong's reasoning is shown in his 1985 version of New Doctrine:

If they are separable, function will differ from original reality and exist independently, and in that way function will have its own original reality. We should not seek for some entity outside function and name it original reality. Furthermore, if original reality exists independent of function, it is a useless reality. In that case, if it is not a dead thing, it must be a dispensable thing. Thinking back and forth, I believe that original reality and function are not separable. (Xiong, 1985, p. 434)

His view on this unity can be seen in his earlier works such as New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness. In New Treatise, he argues that the Reality is equal to the Mind. This Mind does not refer to one's individual mind but the universal presence in which there is a universality of mind amongst all beings, thus being the reality. Xiong incorporates the Confucian and Buddhist concept of self-mastery of one's desires, by arguing that failing to control one's desires and individual mind, one will be "a heap of dead matter". Xiong's view is that one should perceive objects of the world internally, since what is external is ultimately also internal and that they are one as both Mind and Reality.

Mou Zongsan is considered to be one of the more influential second generation philosophers. Mou's general philosophy on metaphysics stays in line with Xiong's. He embellishes upon Xiong's theories on Mind and Reality to apply it to a more socio-political aspect. Mou claims universality exists in all philosophical truth. Which suggests that political and social theories of the world can be connected in essence. Mou argues in his lectures that particularity exists because of the different systems that are established in different cultures.

These different systems, after a series of philosophical reasoning and interpretation, arrive at a same philosophical truth. He believes that our physical limitations, i.e., our physical being, create these different systems and different cultures. Being that our mind, i.e., form, is still manifested and exists within this physical world, we should not let these limitations prevent us from practicing philosophical reasoning.

Mou's political philosophy is more clearly showed as he discusses the historical necessity that follows the particularity of human beings. Different nations and different systems' existence can be explained mainly because of this historical necessity. Mou asserts that historical necessity exists neither because of logical necessity or metaphysical necessity but because of what he calls a development of the spirit, what he labels as dialectical necessity.

He claims that history should be perceived and interpreted as something that has both historical necessity i.e., also dialectical necessity, and moral necessity. For there are two types of judgment: moral and historical. Mou states, that Greek or Chinese, these basic necessities behind history and fundamental human character are the same, and therefore universality in philosophical truth exists even behind politics and history.