Confucianism

← Encyclopedia

Confucianism is the Chinese tradition of ethics, ritual, and statecraft that grew from the teachings of Confucius — Kong Qiu, the master to whom the Analects are ascribed — and developed across more than two millennia into the governing moral language of imperial China. Its older Chinese name is Rújiā, the school of the rú, the scholar-ritualists who knew the rites and the records; some now prefer the term Ruism for that reason, to loosen the tradition from the single founder the Western name fixes on. Kong Qiu lived, by the traditional reckoning, from 551 to 479 BCE, in the small state of Lu during the long twilight of the Zhou dynasty, when the old ritual order was breaking apart into competing lords and the Mandate of Heaven seemed to have loosened its hold. Out of that disorder he made a diagnosis and a cure: the world had gone wrong because people had stopped becoming the kind of people the inherited forms required, and it could be set right one cultivated person at a time.

The center of gravity is not a doctrine about the gods but a discipline of becoming human. The texts hold that a person is made, not born, finished — that through study, ritual, and the patient correction of conduct one may grow into rén, a word usually rendered humaneness or benevolence and understood as the full realization of what it is to be a person among persons. Rén is not a rule but a capacity, the achieved fellow-feeling of someone who has so thoroughly absorbed the bonds of family and society that doing right has become second nature. Right action is learned the way a craft is learned, by practice within forms; li, the rites and proprieties, are those forms, the inherited choreography of family, court, and mourning through which inward feeling is given exact shape. The two terms hold each other up. Without li, rén has no language and no edges; without rén, li is hollow performance, the bow with nothing behind it. The student who masters the forms does not perform humaneness so much as become capable of it — li is the grammar, rén the fluency. To this pair the tradition adds the figure who embodies both: the jūnzǐ, once a word for an aristocrat by birth and remade by Confucius into the noble person, noble by cultivation rather than blood — a quiet rebuke to a society that ranked men by ancestry. Against him stands the xiǎorén, the small or petty person who calculates advantage where the jūnzǐ attends to what is right; the distance between them is not rank but character, and any person may travel it in either direction. The whole apparatus runs through the family first. Xiào, filial devotion, the ordered love between parent and child, is the root from which humaneness grows outward into the wider order; one learns to be a person by first being a son or a daughter.

Confucius presented himself not as an innovator but as a transmitter, recovering the way of the early Zhou kings and of the sage-rulers before them — in the Analects he says he transmits but does not create, and loves the ancients. Whether that modesty is historical or rhetorical is a question scholarship still weighs: the sages he claimed merely to relay become, in his telling, the bearers of a coherent moral vision that looks a great deal like his own, so that the act of transmission is itself a powerful act of making. The Analects — Lúnyǔ, the selected or edited sayings — is not a treatise he wrote but a compilation assembled by his disciples and their disciples across the Warring States period and into the early Han, layered with the memory and editorial hands of several generations. It records a teacher in fragments: an answer to a student, a remark on a walk, a refusal to be drawn on a question. From those fragments the tradition built everything.

The line did not end with him. Mencius — Mèngzǐ, of the fourth century BCE — argued, against rival thinkers, that human nature inclines toward the good and needs only cultivation. He located in every person four sprouts or beginnings: the feeling of compassion that is the germ of humaneness, the sense of shame that is the germ of righteousness, the impulse of deference that is the germ of ritual propriety, and the sense of right and wrong that is the germ of wisdom. Left untended these wither; tended, they grow into the full virtues, the way a seedling grows into a tree. Xunzi — Xún Kuàng, of the third century BCE — held the opposite: that the nature is crooked and must be straightened by ritual and teaching, as warped wood is straightened on a steaming-frame, and that goodness is the deliberate achievement of culture working against a grain that pulls the other way. The disagreement set the terms of debate for centuries, and it was not idle. If nature is already good, the work of teaching is to remove obstructions and let it unfold; if nature is crooked, the rites are not expression but correction, and the authority of the inherited forms is absolute. Both men were Confucians; both took li as central; they differed on why it was needed, and the difference reached down into every later quarrel about education, government, and the human heart.

From the Han dynasty onward the tradition was bound to the state. The court established academic chairs for each of the classics and made command of them the mark of the qualified official, and over the following dynasties this hardened into the civil examination system — a graded ordeal of memorization and composition, crystallized under the Sui and Tang and standardized thereafter, through which the texts became the syllabus and command of them the gate to office. For much of Chinese history the path to power ran through these books; a farmer’s son who mastered them could in principle enter the bureaucracy that ran the empire, and the scholar-official trained on the classics became the characteristic figure of Chinese public life. The classics that mattered were first the Five — the Changes (I Ching), the Documents, the Odes, the Records of Ritual, and the Spring and Autumn Annals — and later, after a decisive re-curation, the Four Books that the Song master Zhu Xi lifted to the center: the Analects, the Mencius, and two short chapters he drew out of the ritual records, the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean. From 1313 the Four Books with Zhu Xi’s own commentary became the official matter of the examinations, and they remained so until the system was abolished under the Qing dynasty in 1905 — a span of nearly six centuries in which the way a young man read these four books, in the readings of one twelfth-century scholar, decided whether he would govern.

That re-curation was the work of the thinkers later called Neo-Confucian — the movement treated in full as Neo-Confucianism, the Song lǐxué, the learning of principle. In the Song dynasty, Zhu Xi chief among them, they reworked the inherited ethics into a full metaphysics of principle and material force — lǐ, the pattern or principle that gives each thing its proper nature and is one across the whole of reality, and qì, the material energy that condenses into the ten thousand concrete things. (This lǐ, principle, is a different word from the li of the rites, though both reach English as the same syllable.) Every thing has its principle; the human task is to investigate things and so come to know the principle in them and in oneself, and to bring the turbid qì of one’s own constitution into accord with it. This was Confucian ethics given a cosmology, and it was built partly in answer to the Buddhism and Taoism that had meanwhile reshaped Chinese thought — borrowing their depth of metaphysical question and their disciplines of stillness and inward attention, while turning the answer back toward the family, the office, and the world, against what the Neo-Confucians read as the Buddhist temptation to treat that world as empty and to leave it.

Whether Confucianism is a religion has been argued for over a century, and the argument turns on what the word is taken to mean. There is no creator god at its heart and little concern with an afterlife; Confucius spoke sparingly of spirits and counseled keeping a respectful distance from them — to attend to the duties owed the living was, he taught, wisdom enough, and when a disciple asked about serving the spirits of the dead he answered that one not yet able to serve the living could hardly serve the dead, and when asked about death replied that one who did not yet understand life could hardly understand it. Yet the tradition sustained an elaborate cult of ancestors and of Heaven — Tiān, at once sky, the impersonal moral order, and the source from which the rightful ruler held his mandate — and treated ritual as something closer to sacred than to mere etiquette, the very medium through which the human and the cosmic order are kept aligned. The sacrifices to ancestors, the mourning rites graded by degree of kinship, the seasonal offerings of the state: these were not decoration on a secular ethics but its working core, the practice in which becoming human and honoring Heaven turned out to be one motion. So scholars who call it a humanism and scholars who call it a religion are often describing the same texts from different ends. Some read the Analects as a this-worldly ethic that found the holy in ordinary human conduct, the secular itself become sacred; others find in the cult of Heaven a genuine transcendence, a teaching that the human and the heavenly are ultimately one. The texts answer to both readings and resolve into neither.

The light it throws sideways is worth a glance. Confucius and Socrates were near contemporaries who left no books of their own and survive in the records of others, each a teacher who pressed his students toward a better way of living rather than a system to be memorized — though where the Athenian drove toward definitions and the examined life, the master of Lu drove toward the rites and the cultivated person, and the two cured very different ills.

The texts and the scholarship

The Confucian canon is not a revealed scripture but a sedimentary deposit laid down over roughly a thousand years and recut repeatedly thereafter — the Analects and the writings of Mencius and Xunzi around a core, the Five Classics canonized when the Han court established its academic chairs, the expanded Thirteen Classics of the Tang, and the Four Books elevated by Zhu Xi in the Song. The standard collated Classical Chinese edition remains Ruan Yuan’s Shisanjing zhushu of 1815, the Thirteen Classics with their Han, Tang, and Song commentaries; for the Four Books the orthodox commentarial text is Zhu Xi’s Sishu zhangju jizhu of 1190. Twentieth-century discoveries of buried manuscripts — the Mawangdui silk texts found in 1973, the Guodian bamboo strips found in 1993, the Shanghai Museum slips — have given versions of the Changes, parts of the ritual records, and an early Analects that diverge from the received text, and the relation of these finds to the transmitted canon remains an active scholarly contest rather than a settled matter.

The foundational English translation is the bilingual work of the Scottish missionary-sinologist James Legge (1815–1897), whose Chinese Classics and contributions to the Sacred Books of the East rendered nearly the whole canon; his Confucian Analects, with the Great Learning and Doctrine of the Mean, is freely readable in the public domain, with the standing caveat that Legge’s Congregationalist lens shaped his prolegomena and his capital-H “Heaven” for Tiān. Alternate public-domain renderings of the period include the bilingual Chinese scholar Ku Hung-ming’s Discourses and Sayings of Confucius (1898), explicitly pitched against Legge, and W. E. Soothill’s cleaner Analects (1910). On the meaning of ritual, Herbert Fingarette’s Confucius: The Secular as Sacred (1972) reread the Analects as a teaching in which ritual propriety carries something close to holy power; on the moral architecture of the tradition, David S. Nivison’s The Ways of Confucianism (1996) gathered the essays that reframed the Mencius–Xunzi debate for English readers. Michael Nylan’s The Five “Confucian” Classics (2001) is the standard recent study of how the Five Classics were gathered into a group and read. For concise scholarly orientation the open Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Confucius surveys the man, the text, and the central terms. Among living translations treated as the current standards, Edward Slingerland’s Analects (2003), Eric Hutton’s complete Xunzi (2014), and the Mengzi translations of D. C. Lau and Bryan Van Norden are the usual points of entry; an accessible overview of the Mencius–Xunzi quarrel over human nature sets the two side by side.

What it asks of a person is consistent across the divide between humanism and religion. Attention to one’s conduct, fidelity to those one is bound to, and the slow work of becoming the kind of human the rites assume.

→ Related: Taoism · Buddhism · Socrates · China · Han Dynasty · Song Dynasty · Zhu Xi · Neo Confucianism Song Lixue · Zhou Dynasty · I Ching · Qing Dynasty · Ritual