On Order and Hierarchy some notes on their interrelation with regards to Protestant and Confucian thinkers.
Anthony Easton
World Religions
K'ung-fu-tzu speaks of guiding principals of the world, and some of these guiding principals are constructed as relationships—these relationships centre around a Mandarin term, Li, which can be translated variously as etiquette, or rituals, or rites, or courtly workings that result in propriety, or in Thomas Selover’s definition in the Routledege Encyclopedia of Confucianism : The traditional etymology of li is 'to dress jade' or 'veins in jade'; the grain of wood is a common illustration. Li is usually translated as 'principle' (see Chan, 1964), while some authors prefer 'pattern' or 'order'. Another choice is 'coherence' because of the nuances of 'reason' found in li. The verbal meaning 'to put in order, to arrange' is also instructive. Li is a self-demonstrating concept, like the idea of an idea, but firmly grounded in the specific actuality of things and events….”[1]
This principal, of the world ordered and the world contained by a specific, universal pattern, attaches not only the world, but to very specific human interactions—there are five, working as a kind of tower, with one half bending to the other’s will, that mark this world view; namely: “ruler and subject; father and son; elder brother and younger brother; husband and wife; and friend and friend according to age. Though this might seem alien to the post-enlightenment western view of the world as a set of democratic relationships, that function as prominently available social texts; I would argue that there is a strong connection in these contexts to the protestant goal of good order and good government, a goal that is foundational to our understanding of the world.
In an attempt to work through these connections, in the tight space that I have here, I will go through each of these relationships, and suggest some protestant parallels.
The first is ruler and subject. The strict hierarchy of this would suggest the lack of any democratic potential—and it is the case that where-ever Confucian culture found itself, there was a strict court system and a system that encouraged the rise and importance of a singular ruler. This said, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that the rigidness of the system should be balanced with a ruler that “should learn self-discipline, should govern his subjects by his own example, and should treat them with love and concern” [2]
Christians began with a complicated relationship with the state—and in the early church; there was a direct opposition to those in power and those who had none. In this capacity, though in Romans 12:6, we are admonished to pray for our leaders; those leaders were never assumed to be secular. The difference then, is at least a nominal separation between the church and the state that often worked as a de facto double ruler.
Though there was a hierarchy that was in place within the
[1] Thomas Selover "Li 理." Routledgecurzon Encyclopedia Of Confucianism. Ed. Xinzhong
[2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Conficious and Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/#ConSoc
No comments:
Post a Comment