Professor Csikszentmihalyi, now of UC Berkley, contributed the paper on Confucianism to the Neusner-Chilton volume.
He makes it clear at the outset that the questions asked of the writers for this volume have no clear-cut answers in Confucian thought, history or interpretation.
“The most commonly cited examples of the Golden Rule in China are from the Analects…of Confucius…Jesuit missionaries cited parallels between the Chinese versions of the Golden Rule and the formulations in the books of Matthew (7.12) and Luke (6.31) as evidence of a relatively unpolluted link to an early shared ‘Natural Law.”
In a history of China written in 1844, Thomas Thornton suggested that the Golden Rule
“had been inculcated by Confucius, almost in the same words, four centuries before (the time of the Gospels).”
Sixteenth century Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, like Thornton, “emphasized similarities between China and Christendom”, however, “later writers were more intent on drawing contrasts between the two”.
A Scottish missionary, James Legge, is quoted by Csikszentmihaly:
“The lesson of the gospel commands men to do what they feel to be right and good. It requires them to commence a course of such conduct, without regard to the conduct of others to themselves. The lesson of Confucius only forbids men to do what they feel to be wrong and hurtful.”
(Note the explicit absence of reciprocity in favor of reflexivity. Note also the emphasis on the emotional as opposed to the rational or analytical. CRL)
Legge “finds the positive formulation superior” to the negative.
Another scholar, however, Robert Allinson, “argues that the ‘negative’ formulation is superior” writing:
“…the notion of making the world safe for democracy arises naturally from the background of the affirmative formulation, but would not be a natural deduction from the negative formulation.”
The author notes,
“Allison lacks Legge’s missionary imperative, and as a result he reverses his predecessor’s valuation…”
(This “missionary imperative” is a key issue in the evaluation of ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ Golden Rule statements. See an earlier post on Martin Luther’s view. CRL)
The author in this paper analyzes four early Chinese texts that he proposes are “early Chinese formulations of the Golden Rule”.
This author, more than others, has structured his paper to follow the outline provided by the conference conveners. He takes in order the questions: What does the Golden Rule say? What does it mean? How does it work? And How does it matter?
What Does the Golden Rule Say?
The core of the Golden Rule, says this author, borrowing the “minimal definition” of William Green is
“a general statement that instructs us to treat others as we want, and would want, others to treat us”.
I do not agree. We’ve seen others already minimize the distinction between the “do unto others” injunction and the “don’t do” injunction by combining the two into a single statement about how we are to “treat” others. As a tactic to ease analysis and comment I understand that, but I think it is too easy an avenue for avoidance of difficulties. It should be resisted.
He continues:
“Strictly speaking, the Golden Rule does not tell us what we can or should do, but rather provides a standard for comparing two courses of action based on the desires of the other person.”
I disagree here also. First, the idea that there are only two possible alternatives available to the actor is not supported by anything I’ve seen. And, secondly, it’s clear that the “do unto” statement is based on a self-referential standard, not one driven by the desires of the “other”.
But then Csikszentmihalyi makes a very important point. He notes that some of the Golden Rule statements found in the Confucian texts are concrete i.e. imperatives intended to guide action, while others are clearly metaphorical i.e. “cultural referent(s) to illustrate other instances of reflexivity”.
“In China”, he writes, “at least half of the canonical invocations of the Golden Rule…are of the metaphorical variety.”
Both of the passages in the Analects of Confucius “are phrased in such a way as to emphasize the nonperformance of actions that one does not oneself desire:
‘do not impose upon others those things that you yourself do not desire’.”
In the instance recorded at Analects 12.2 Confucius was answering a question about the virtue of benevolence and the answer given is interpreted as Confucius instructing his disciple “to treat people respectfully even if they are outside his kinship group or social class.”
It is interesting that we see here, again, as we did in Islam and Hinduism, the clear idea of differential relationships and obligations or expectations based on kinship and class.
The same answer is given by Confucius to another disciple at Analects 15.24 but here it is in answer to a different question.
“Zigong asked: ‘Is there a single doctrine that one may put into practice throughout one’s life?’ The Master said: ‘It is reciprocity. Do not impose upon others those things that you yourself do not desire.’”
The author acknowledges that
“This passage would appear to place the concept of reciprocity and the Golden Rule at the center of Confucius’ teachings”.
But he then notes that there is much skepticism among commentators on that point and some explicit denials. He quotes E. Bruce Brooks as “saying the Golden Rule is ‘notable as not a saying of Confucius.’”
“Indeed” he writes “an action that expresses the actor’s ritual propriety would be determined by the social role of the other person involved, and not, as Brooks points out, their desires.”
This sounds much more like the injunction to act toward others in a manner appropriate to the relationship, as we saw in Islam.
That is a relative standard of action, not an absolute one.
Csikszentmihalyi then moves on to later texts.
In the “Doctrine of the Mean” we find the same statement found in the Analects i.e. “Do not impose….” However, it is specifically intended as advice to a ruler and has a specific, not a general application.
In a passage from the “Great Learning” a different formulation is found. Like the first passage cited from Analects, it responds to the issue of benevolence, but it differs in that it is not universal “it only applies to the ruler’s ability to morally transform the population.”
So, in the first example brought from Analects the principle cited as Golden Rule language pertains to one who performs rituals for others and
“it allows that person to treat people outside his affiliation group in the same way that the person treats people inside that group.”
In the last three cases brought, he concludes
“the application of the Golden Rule is not universal, but is instead limited to particular interactions, and the rule seems to be invoked at least partly as metaphor to talk about limited moral imperatives.”
This is a long way from the interpretations of the early Christian commentators on Chinese and Confucian thought.
What Does the Golden Rule Mean?
The author in this section first argues that the conflict between the positive versus negative statements of the golden rule largely “disappear once the need to assert the superiority of one system is put aside.” He cites David S. Nivison (quoted in Confucian Ethics of the Axial Age by Roetz) who argues against a distinction between the two as follows:
“Not doing something to another is always, under another description, doing something to that person, and conversely.”
That is Harry Gensler’s argument. I disagree in this case as I disagreed with Gensler.
Csikszentmihalyi notes:
“In most readings of the Analects, the Golden Rule is associated with the virtue of benevolence.”
And:
“It was not until after Buddhism came to China that Neo-Confucians gave these classical expressions of the Golden Rule a more important role in their ethical systems.”
He concluded this section saying:
“While early Confucianism was not especially compatible with the Golden Rule, later Confucianism was more so.”
How Does the Golden Rule Work?
“In most Confucian contexts proper ritual action is indexed to one’s place in the social hierarchy, and so it is hard to imagine the application of an unrepaired version of the Golden Rule not eliciting harsh punishment.”
It is “difficult to meaningfully compare the place of the Golden Rule in early Chinese ethics with its role in other religious contexts.”
The Golden Rule was “subordinated to the general Confucian social system”.
How Does the Golden Rule Matter?
“In Confucianism, the Golden Rule is fundamentally the idea of reversibility as a guide for action. It is therefore a ‘method’ integrated into the practice of benevolence (in the Analects) into good government…”
“It is not – at least not for the earliest Confucians – consistently seen as a guide to moral action.”
Classical expressions of Golden Rule “style” statements were applied more widely after Buddhism has become established in China and, according the author, “it can be said that the Golden Rule ‘mattered’ more to later writers.”
He cites Ernest D. Burton, agreeing with Burton’s description of the Golden Rule in Chinese thought as “not in actual application a rule at all…”
©Charles R. Lightner