1988 / November

儒家思想與現代中國人對道德自主性的探索
Confucian Thought and the Modern Chinese Quest for Moral Autonomy

研究論文 Research Article

墨子刻
Thomas A. Metzger

297-358

儒家思想與現代性之間的關聯，無疑地已成爲中國思想史研究的重要課題之一，但由於參與此一關聯之探討的部分論者並未有效地釐清「規範問題」與「事實問題」的分野，以致在一定的程度上使問題的焦點無法清楚地呈現。本文的主要目的即是對有關此一關聯的爭論做總體的歷史考察，並檢省儒家倫理對權威與個人自主性的具體見解能否配合當前中國現代化過程裏，關於個人實現的理想。最後並分析儒家的「樂觀主義的現世觀」與民主化的關係。

This article attempts to add to the continuing discussion about the relation between the Confucian tradition and modernity. This discussion has already gone through several five stages: Wo-jen's (d.1871) rejection of Western ways; Chang Chih-tung's (1837-1909) idea of combining Western and traditional ways; May Fourth iconoclasm, which increas­ingly dominated intellectual life until the 1960 s or so; the rise of modern Confucian human­ism, illustrated by the influence of Yü Ying-shih; and the continuing contemporary rejec­tion or basic criticism of traditional values, illustrated by the writings of Yang Kuo-shu or even the recent television series Ho-shang. In the West too, criticism of Confucian values has continued, as illustrated by Benjamin I. Schwartz's view of Confucius as putting more emphasis on ritual, status, authority, and hierarchy than on the moral autonomy of the individual. This article argues that some of this controversy can be clarified by distinguishing between normative questions (should Confucian values persist?) and historical or factual questions (have they persisted?). Turning first to the factual aspects, many scholars today reject exceptionalism. China was no exception in world history: As in other cases, modernization in China has been a mix of continuities and discontinuities with the past. Much of the Little Tradition has persisted; modern intellectual movements have explicitly evoked traditional values; so has the political philosophy of the Three Principles of the People; and many traditional modes of thinking have influenced even iconoclasm. Recent work by S. N. Eisenstadt and Robert N. Bellah suggests that as any "axial civilization" such as China modernizes, traditional orientations created thousands of years ago persist to a large extent even as controversy surrounds them. Turning to the normative questions, scholars largely agree that modernization has been furthered by the traditional, persisting emphasis on socially harmonious, efficient, constructively competitive, and economically useful work. Second, they largely agree on the need to emphasize science and instrumental rationality, including full access to the world's historical and contemporary sources of knowledge (Karl W. Deutsch's "openness"). Many Mainland scholars today blame the traditional culture and the Communist regime for neglecting this need. Largely meeting this need, the political system in Taiwan did so by continuing that process of cultural revision going back to the thought of K'ang Yu-wei and Liang Ch'i-ch'ao. Third, scholars have also largely agreed that moderniza­tion requires an emphasis on freedom and equality, and that therefore Chinese should reject the tradition's emphasis on monarchy, the inferiority of women, and aristocratic rank (such as the imperial nobility). What scholars still disagree about is whether the modern need for freedom and equal­ity is in conflict with the general Confucian approach toward the problems of authority and individual autonomy. Yang Kuo-shu says it is in conflict, and Benjamin I. Schwartz in effect has the same position, while modern Confucian humanists say that Confucian thought put primacy on the moral autonomy of the individual. This article offers more evidence supporting the position of modern Confucian humanism in this regard.<br>It also argues, however, that there is another aspect of the Confucian tradition which modern Confucian humanists and other scholars have largely overlooked, and which has a complex, partly problematic relation to the modern goal of a polity founded on equality and freedom. This aspect of the Confucian tradition is described here as "optimistic this­-worldliness."

Abstract full PDF text