The resurgence of Confucianism in China is of great political significance, because the Chinese Communist Party leadership is keen to reshape the ideological landscape at home.
Under Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) economic reforms, the ethos of capitalism has dominated every aspect of society, but rapid transformation has caused much anxiety among the populace. Rampant corruption, ruthless competition and consumerism are the symptoms of popular insecurity. Many people worry about the absence of a moral code to replace Maoism.
Some people have turned to Confucianism for psychological support in order to deal with the stress and strain of a fast-changing economy. Prominent writer Yu Dan (于丹) adapts many of Confucius’ (孔子) ideas for the tired and stressed-out, weaving his ancient sayings with the daily experiences of her urban audience and providing self-help guides on personal fulfillment.
Meanwhile, Confucianism gives government officials an invaluable resource for addressing the nation’s new political needs. With a sense of confidence about China’s economic accomplishments, the Communist leadership is articulating unique Chinese perspectives on many developmental and governance issues.
Even though some party leaders fall short of embracing Confucianism, they recast this philosophy as a new soft power to compliment the country’s growing status, and have founded hundreds of Confucius Institutes (孔子學院) worldwide. Funded by the Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (中國國家漢語國際推廣領導小組辦公室) and formed in partnership with many universities, high schools and cultural institutions, the Confucius Institutes promote the study of Mandarin abroad and establish exchange programs between hosting organizations and Chinese universities.
The appeal of China’s top-down developmental model seems to have become an irresistible alternative to the West. The Communist leaders acknowledge that Confucianism does more than justify an alternative model of state-led capitalism; it can counter the West and reframe the normative order of the international system. This reveals Beijing’s determination to use Confucianism as a new weapon in the global battle of ideas and to rebrand China as an alternative model of modernization based on non-interference, freedom from Western hegemony and a more dominant role for the state.
Evidently, the Communist regime seeks to appropriate Confucianism as a new cultural force against the West. After all, the state can no longer employ Mao Zedong (毛澤東) as a political icon, because of the unprecedented pain and suffering that he caused during the Great Famine (1958–1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976).
Nevertheless, such an authoritarian rhetoric lacks theoretical substance and reveals nothing about the reality of China. The pro-independence uprisings in Tibet and Xinjiang, the escalation of social conflicts and labor unrest, and the cries for democracy in Hong Kong suggest that the country is plagued with severe internal discontent.
Perhaps intellectuals and community activists ought to apply the Confucian principle of good governance to defend civil society against complete incorporation by a powerful state. In a similar fashion, the Communist leaders should take seriously Confucius’ idea of political legitimacy to assess their own leadership qualities and to envision a more cosmopolitan identity for the country. Otherwise, the idea of a changing mandate of heaven might become a fulfilling prophesy in the 21st century.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history and co-director of the Global Asia studies program at Pace University in New York.
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
Taiwan faces complex challenges like other Asia-Pacific nations, including demographic decline, income inequality and climate change. In fact, its challenges might be even more pressing. The nation struggles with rising income inequality, declining birthrates and soaring housing costs while simultaneously navigating intensifying global competition among major powers. To remain competitive in the global talent market, Taiwan has been working to create a more welcoming environment and legal framework for foreign professionals. One of the most significant steps in this direction was the enactment of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals (外國專業人才延攬及僱用法) in 2018. Subsequent amendments in
US President Donald Trump on Saturday signed orders to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China effective from today. Trump decided to slap 25 percent tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada as well as 10 percent on those coming from China, but would only impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy products, including oil and electricity. Canada and Mexico on Sunday quickly responded with retaliatory tariffs against the US, while countermeasures from China are expected soon. Nevertheless, Trump announced yesterday to delay tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month and said he would hold further talks with
Taiwan’s undersea cables connecting it to the world were allegedly severed several times by a Chinese ship registered under a flag of convenience. As the vessel sailed, it used several different automatic identification systems (AIS) to create fake routes. That type of “shadow fleet” and “gray zone” tactics could create a security crisis in Taiwan and warrants response measures. The concept of a shadow fleet originates from the research of Elisabeth Braw, senior fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. The phenomenon was initiated by authoritarian countries such as Iran, North Korea and Russia, which have been hit by international economic