There is a belief that the Confucian tradition can only be understood under an East Asian context—that only by being raised in East Asia, could one truly understand Confucianism. However, the existence of the Boston Confucians contradicts this assumption. The demonstration of how aspects of Confucianism are present within Boston (and, more widely, America), such as in Robert Neville’s connection between ritual propriety and pragmatic semiotics and the articulation of ren and filial love, which can be related to Christianity, illustrates how Confucian tradition is apparent in Western culture, ultimately proving that it is possible as a world philosophy.
In his book, Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World, Neville draws a link between li, or “ritual propriety”, and pragmatic semiotics.1 By highlighting this connection, Neville reveals Confucian virtues that relate to Western philosophies. Furthermore, this relation exemplifies the West’s ability to conceive Confucianism; thus, it emphasizes Confucian’s possibility as global philosophy. In order to recognize this relationship, let us look at Neville’s definition of both, ritual propriety and pragmatic semiotics. The deeper meaning of ritual propriety to Neville is that it ‘creates culture, is conventional, and is a particular kind of harmony’.2 In other words, rituals are not simply having “good manners” and following some grand exhibition of rites. Rather, ritual propriety should be understood as simpler and common. For instance, rituals transform procreation into the concept of a family. Certain actions which indicate a family dynamic, like parents caring for the wellbeing of their children, are culturally understood. Hence, ritual propriety is communicated through socially acceptable demonstrations of larger concepts, such as family, friendship, and respect.
Pragmatic semiotics holds a similar definition. Pragmatism views language and interpretation as the creation of meaning rather than mirroring reality. Moreover, pragmatic semiotics studies how signs and symbols constitute meaning.3 For example, the difference between mere cooperation and a close friendship are the signs, like a person’s actions, which portray the difference. Certain signs are culturally understood as equating friendship, such as levels of intimacy and trust. In this context, pragmatic semiotics creates culture, is conventional, and is harmonious. These signs symbolize higher associations, like family and friendship, similarly to ritual propriety. Therefore, a formulation of ritual propriety exists in Western culture. This existence shows that vital parts of Confucianism can be perceived outside of the Eastern context. Thus, Confucianism is portable into a world philosophy.
The similarities between Confucianism’s ren and Christianity’s underscore of family also illustrate a Western understanding of Confucian values. Ren is often translated into a benevolent, human “love”, yet it is also a differentiated form of love, which means that it recognizes a difference between a stronger love for one’s family compared to love for a stranger. Still, ren maintains a compassion for others. In Book One, Confucius states that ‘a young person should be filial when at home’ and that ‘he should display a general care for the masses’.4 In Confucian tradition, filial piety plays a vital role as a virtue.5 Likewise, Christianity emphasizes agape and parental love. The Bible contends that ‘thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’6; additionally, the Bible instructs people to ‘honour thy father and thy mother’.7 Both traditions hold parallel beliefs pertaining to love. Furthermore, both acknowledge the necessity of filial piety to this love. Hence, an essential aspect of Confucianism, that of ren, is already understood in the Western context under Christianity. This understanding allows the West to grasp the teachings of Confucianism—without the requirement of an Eastern context. Thus, Confucianism is possible as a global philosophy.
- Robert Neville, Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World (Albany, 2000), p. 2. [↩]
- Ibid., p. 9. [↩]
- Ibid., p. 12. [↩]
- Confucius, ‘The Analects’, in Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden (eds), Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy (Indianapolis, 2001), p. 22. [↩]
- Tu Weiming, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Chung-yung, (Honolulu, 1976), p. 55. [↩]
- Leviticus 19: 18 (KJV). [↩]
- Exodus 20: 21 (KJV). [↩]