Confucius and Willful Peacekeeping

(Credit to Dan Imburgia for the creation of this sign for today’s No King protest)

Warning: This is a long article. Make yourself a cup of tea…..

Today, I have a bit of a strange project on my mind: to explore the English concept of “willfulness” through the eyes of Confucius, or at least through the way in which his sayings were recorded by his followers in the collection we know as Analects in English. This post is inspired by a combination of events: Me teaching some relevant passages from the Analects in my classical Chinese course on the one hand, and getting ready for the big national No Kings protest that is happening all over the US today, on the other. What does it mean for me to cultivate virtue, to obey Heaven’s Mandate mìng 命, to stand in the light of my truth (my reading of xìn 信), let my sense of right and wrong guide my towards righteous actions (yì 義), and embody compassion and love (rén 仁)? Let’s see what Confucius might have to offer me personally in this particular moment in time as I navigate life as a native German aware of my history, living in a country under a government that is racing to implement a fascist takeover...

Anybody who knows anything about Chinese culture, whether as a native Chinese person, as a scholar, or even as somebody who has just briefly been exposed to traditional Chinese values as expressed in education, history, and society, will have a quick answer on this topic, easily supported by a cursory Google search: Most likely, you will shrug your shoulders and say something along the lines of “Of course Confucius very much opposed willfulness, because it is the exact opposite of the social harmony he dedicated his life to promoting, by preaching the importance of fitting in and following orders from those above you in the social hierarchy.”

Willfulness is defined in the synonym section of Webster’s online dictionary as “not submissive to government or control.” The prime example is a willful child, who is stubborn, undisciplined, and unwilling to obey parents or other authority figures, but insists instead on pursuing what they choose as the right course of action at that moment, whether this means jumping into mud puddles, eating dessert first, or not sharing a toy. We all know that the single most important message of Confucianism is that we should prioritize the need of the collective (family or state) over the need of the individual, and that this is something that parents, teachers, and other adults need to transmit to children from early childhood on. The ideal order is most often exemplified by the role of the father as the head of the household and family, with authority over his wife, younger brothers, children, and any other humans in subservient roles and extended family. In this system, values like control of emotions, conforming to norms, self-discipline, and propriety are inculcated from an early age on through stories, art, ritual, education, laws, and disciplinary consequences in private and public life, with the goal

So… end of story? Well, not so fast! Let me explain: If there is a single negative label that my family, teachers, and society have plastered on my forehead far too many times in this lifetime, it is probably willfulness (or the German equivalent “Eigensinn”). I come from a very conservative, strictly hierarchical family in Wuerzburg, a very conservative town in Bavaria, a very conservative state in conservative Germany. From table manners and gendered family chores to kindergarden restrictions to college regulations to administrative rules in my job as a university professor to water disputes in the traditional Hispanic community I used to live in, I have been labeled “willful,” or “stubborn” or “uppity” or whatever similar word comes to mind for a girl or woman who refuses to fit in and submit to the social norms. In my rebellious teens, I thought that leaving my family, culture, and native country by moving abroad was the answer, only to find that while America might be paying lip service to values of equality and women’s liberation, that was pretty much just superficial fluff. Just look at what values the current political leadership in the US is promoting at this very moment: White male strength and domination and power over anybody else. Fit in, don’t stick out, keep your mouth shut, follow instructions from authority figures, and do your job in whatever social role you happen to find yourself, and the men in uniform will leave you alone (at least for now). Sounds to me like classic Confucianism, no? My own mother tells me not to attend protests and blames me when, once again, I get into a conflict not of my choosing for simply asserting my right to maintain my boundaries, standing up for what I have created, and refusing to allow a local bully to snuff out “this little light of mine” that I want to let shine. At this point, I am an old lady who has been around the block and worked damn hard for who and where I am and what I choose to do with my life. So, I have grown a bit of proverbial chest hair, plus I have a daughter who still pays attention not to what I say but to what I do. If you want to call that “willful,” go right ahead, especially right now, in a country whose government I find repulsive, offensive, and contrary to my personal values. “Question authority” has always been my favorite Einstein quote (even if, yes, the apparent original German “Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit” has a slightly different message).

At the same time, I have spent decades studying, contemplating, and teaching traditional Chinese history and culture, and have been deeply affected by this professional engagement also in a personal way. And whether we like it or not, Confucius and his work are at the core of this culture. Note that I said “Confucius” and not “Confucianism”! As a matter of fact, this distinction is essential, since the system of governmental and social control that developed in traditional China on the basis of a certain interpretation of Confucius’ sayings should not be equated with the teachings of the actual person. While I don’t want to sugarcoat Confucius, I do see another side to his message that is often ignored for the sake of simplification. So let’s dig a little deeper, to find answers to the following questions: How do you create or promote social harmony in a society or under a government whose values you disagree with? How do you confront authority that is wrongfully claimed or executed? What do you do when your personal values, your moral compass, your sense of right and wrong, conflict with those of the people in positions of power above you on the hierarchical ladder? And ultimately, how do we respond to a rapidly changing society with values that are in flux, that is changing so quickly and profoundly that what one generation holds true no longer fits the lived reality of the next generation?

In Warring States China where technology and culture evolved in centuries instead of days, Confucius may not have had to address such a complex situation in the same way that we do today. And of course, sex and gender were not issues that Confucius ever concerned himself with, at least that we know of based on what his followers chose to record. I should mention here that, in my experience, most people interpret the Analects as far more misogynistic than the original text actually is, especially when just reading it in translation, since we still choose male pronouns or value-laden terms to interpret an original text that was much more neutral.

For just the two most obvious examples, 人 means “human,” not “man,” and 子 means “child,” not “son,” even though there are certainly many contexts when it is appropriate to consider whether these terms implied only the male subcategory in the author’s mind. But then again, do we really know what Confucius intended to say when it comes to gender relations? What did it mean for Confucius personally to be a true father? Did he differentiate, in his own household, between his sons and his daughters, especially in their childhood? Or in other words, was the love and care with which he treated his own young children graded on the basis of their sex? For answers, let’s consider a statement like this, here translated as literally as possible to minimize any interpretation I may be tempted to add:

Duke Jing of Qi asked Confucius about government.

Confucius responded: “For the lord to be and act as a [true] lord and for the servant to be and act as a [true] servant; for the father to be and act as a [true] father and for the child to be and act as a [true] child…”

The Duke said: “Wonderful! Truly, if the lord fails to be and act as a [true] lord and the servant fails to be and act as a [true servant], if the father fails to be and act as a [true] father and the child fails to be and act as a [true] child, even if there were grain available, would I get to eat any?”

齊景公問政於孔子。孔子對曰：「君君，臣臣，父父，子子。」公曰：「善哉！信如君不君，臣不臣，父不父，子不子，雖有粟，吾得而食諸？」

Yes, my translation is awkward and might take you a few passes to understand, but I am trying to be really literal to make my point clear here. I am not aware of a single translation that does not replace my literal translation of “child” with the gendered word “son,” leaving us moderns with a potentially bitter taste in our mouths and the assumption that Confucius didn’t care about his daughters, or believed that the ideal father shouldn’t and wouldn’t. The literal meaning of zǐ 子, however, is ungendered, like “offspring,” like the seeds of plants, eggs, or baby animals.

I have also chosen not to translate jūn jūn zǐ zǐ 君君臣臣 as “the ruler rules and the servant serves,” as tempting as it may be to replicate the original’s noun-verb syntax in such an elegant way. But to me, there is too much of a danger that we read our own modern understanding of what it means to rule and to serve, or even our standard ideas of what it meant in traditional China, into this fairly obscure statement by Confucius that lacks any context in the original text. What does it mean for a jūn 君 to act as such and to truly embody this position in society? While we will never know the full answer to this question, much less when it comes to the private role of the father, we do know that in the Analects, jūn 君 is a loaded concept that implies so much more than “to lord it over” like a certain orange wanna-be dictator or corrupt emperors in popular Chinese history dramas. Confucius’ jūn, or jūnzi 君子, is not a ruler marked by the power to dominate others, but rather a person associated with refinement, culture, nobility, virtues, education, and self-cultivation, even self-discipline, and the ability to prioritize the needs of others over their own, regardless of their external circumstances, social status, or gender. Most importantly, a jūnzi follows Heaven’s “Mandate” 天命 or orders and is in alignment with the Dào! Everywhere we look, we see Confucius’ ideal social order as one of relationships that emphasize reciprocity, mutual responsibility, and care for others. At its core, Confucius’ teachings revolve around the two virtues of rén 仁 and yì 義, usually translated as “humaneness/benevolence” and “righteousness/justice.” Rén is the virtue of empathy, of putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, of not imposing onto others what you would not want for yourself. I dare translate it as “love” these days because love is where I am at right now and what the world needs, and if I lose my academic credentials over this choice, so be it! Elsewhere in the Analects, this notion is used to define shù 恕, which in turn is paired with zhōng 忠 as the twin virtues of socially harmonizing behavior upward and downward, by Confucius’ disciple to describe the single thread that connects all of the Master’s teachings. The virtue of rén 仁 is balanced with yì 義, our moral compass, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and therefore, by implication, to choose the right or righteous action, no matter what the personal consequences might be.

And this pair of virtues finally takes us back to my topic of willfulness: It is easy to figure out how Confucius would respond as an authority figure to the willfulness of a child throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their choice in the candy aisle at the grocery store or about to run out into traffic on a busy road. And we must not sugarcoat the fact that Confucius did use this most basic power differential of parent-child dynamic as his model to explain the ideal social relations among adult humans. So, like a father in charge of the safety and welfare of the family, any person in a superior social position should control, guide by example, and correct the behavior of those below them when it disrupts social harmony and imperils the wellbeing of others, including the person who is acting up. And, you will be right to insist, if we look for Analects passages that endorse rebellion by a person or group in an inferior social position towards a person or group above them, we are out of luck. I do want to be intellectually honest here, and did spend a bit of time looking for passages that might support my intended claim. Unfortunately, I came up empty-handed, that much is true. And yet, what struck me as relevant are the following observations:

First, the fact that Confucius never advised a person in an inferior social position to disobey their superior does not mean that he advised against it. Rather, I would argue, his concern was with advising the people in the superior position, so his message on resolving potential conflict addressed the topic from the perspective of the one in power. He did not address himself to the servants, commoners, wives, and children, but rather to the rulers, the literate elite, the male elders who were in charge of ensuring the safety and welfare of those in their care. And from that perspective, he was very clear on the moral obligations of the person in power to act with the two virtues I mentioned above, rén and yì, empathy and righteousness, and to prioritize the needs of those below them over their own needs, just like the father would feed his children before feeding himself. I wish certain people in power would read the Analects instead of playing golf or watching hate-filled infotainment…

Second, when It comes to placing the blame for any existing social disorder, it is important to note that Confucius never once blamed the people below for this most dreaded condition of luàn 亂 “chaos” or “disorder.” Instead, he always blamed the person in the dominant position. According to Confucius, the ruler should be like the wind, so powerful that the grass will naturally bend in the direction that the wind blows. Or like the polestar that has all the other stars circling around it, held in its orbit through the subtle power of its dé 德 “virtue,” in the sense of “charisma” or “presence.” If somebody is a truly powerful, wise, virtuous, and cultivated leader, they do not have to influence the actions of those below them by using force, through threats and punishments, but instead are followed naturally, due to the power of their presence and personal example, so that those below them WANT to study, eat spinach, pay taxes, do the dishes, help build a dam, take care of the sick and old, share their resources, or obey traffic laws. As any conscious parent knows, as soon as you yell at your kid and lose your temper, you have become ineffective…

For Confucius, it was a given, not right or wrong but simply a fact of nature, that, when the ruler is corrupt, the people will rebel. If the grasses in a meadow point in all different directions instead of moving in waves of harmony, that is not the fault of the grasses but of the wind not being strong and consistent enough to guide them. So perhaps it's simply a funny twist of fate that these days, it is mostly low-level academics, youngsters in elementary school, and students, not political leaders, who read and interpret Confucius. I do believe that Confucius cared deeply about the social disorder in his age and wanted to be as effective as he could possibly be. So he went straight to the top, rather than preaching to masses, and spent his life traveling from court to court and state to state, trying to convince the men in power to be better leaders, rather than the people below to be better followers. It actually makes me a bit upset to consider how Confucius’ message has been misinterpreted and misused by the people in power throughout Chinese history to indoctrinate the people below on how to be better followers, instead of taking it to heart in their own lives, looking in the mirror, and contemplating how to be better leaders and providers. What would a society look like where the people in charge followed Confucius’ ideals, not the people below?

Third, Confucius is very clear that a person’s external circumstances are not a reflection of their spiritual cultivation or state of virtue. The only thing that matters is that each of us reflect in our daily life on what the right action is in any given moment. It is not my job to decide whether the other person above or below me is right or wrong, but only to look at the situation I find myself in and choose the proper response, in accordance with the two qualities of rén and yì. If my consciousness tells me to proceed in such a way that I gain wealth or status, that may be a pleasant coincidence, but it must never be a factor to influence my decision, just as the fear of losing my home, wealth, freedom, or even life must never affect my choices either!

Lastly, Confucius spoke with his actions and repeatedly packed his bags and walked out, suffering physical danger, homelessness, and starvation on the road rather than staying in a situation that conflicted with his personal values. From the perspective of the disgruntled ruler left in the dust, wouldn’t they be tempted to describe such behavior as “willful”? Isn’t the act of walking away from a prestigious position and choosing poverty over wealth, and obscurity over fame, just as powerful and effective, if not more so, than an open rebellion that will get your head chopped off?

The trick for me, then, is to read the Analects critically and figure out how to apply his ancient message to my own contemporary situation by keeping this subtext in mind. In other words, how can I act like a modern-day jūnzi 君子, a “noble” or cultivated person? How can I balance the need, as a single mother and daughter and teacher and student and neighbor and farmer, to protect, nurture, and provide for those in my care, while serving those above me, while also taking into account my own needs, as an individual enmeshed in my own web of relationships, near and far, up and down, distant and close, short-term and long-term, professional and personal? And if my choices in this regard have resulted in my being labeled as “willful,” at this point in my life, it’s my turn to shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, then so be it!” I will follow Confucius’ advice and stick to my values, taking my orders from Heaven and following my own Dào, as the path that nobody else can walk for me, to throw a bit of Laozi into the mix for good measure.

The answer that I arrived at this morning, after a few days of working on this essay, for today’s day of national “No Kings” protests, came back loud and clear and glorious: Serve as a “Peace-Keeper”! What a beautiful word! What a beautiful role! What a beautiful day! Really, I get to actually, for a couple of precious hours, literally refer to myself as a “peace-keeper” and interact with people under that label and identity? Oh heck yes, I will embrace Confucius’ project of “rectification of names” 正名 if I get to carry that title! I feel like a very lucky duck today! And on that note, I’ll conclude this essay with a few literal translations so that you don’t think I made it all up…

Analects 4.4:

The Master said: “As long as your intention is set on love, no matter what, you can do no wrong.”

子曰：「苟志於仁矣，無惡也。」

Analects 4.9:

The Master said “A noble who has their intention set on the Dào but who is embarrassed by shabby clothes or simple food is not worth my time.”

子曰：「士志於道，而恥惡衣惡食者，未足與議也。」

Analects 7.16:

The Master said: “Eating brown rice and drinking plain water, with an elbow for my pillow, I can still be happy as a clam. But wealth and status gained unjustly? They are to me like floating clouds.”

子曰：「飯疏食飲水，曲肱而枕之，樂亦在其中矣。不義而富且貴，於我如浮雲。」

Analects 8.13:

The Master said: “Love learning with single-minded dedication, perfect the Dào until the day you die! A region at risk, do not enter! A region in chaos, do not stay! When the Dào is present in the world, show yourself! When the Dào is absent, stay hidden!

In a region where the Dào is present, it is poverty and a bad reputation that should make you ashamed. In a region where the Dào is absent, it is wealth and high status that should make you ashamed.”

子曰：「篤信好學，守死善道。危邦不入，亂邦不居。天下有道則見，無道則隱。

邦有道，貧且賤焉，恥也；邦無道，富且貴焉，恥也。」

Analects 13.6:

The Master said: “If [the leader] is upright, the people will act without any need for orders. If the person is not upright, the people will not follow even though they are ordered to do so.”

子曰：「其身正，不令而行；其身不正，雖令不從。」

Analects 13.23:

The Master said: “The cultivated person is harmonious yet does not conform. The small person conforms yet fails to be harmonious.”

子曰：「君子和而不同，小人同而不和。」

Analects 13.24:

Zigong asked: “If all the people in a community like a person, what do you make of that?”

The Master said: “Impossible to answer.”

“If all the people in a community dislike a person, what then?”

The Master said: “Impossible to answer. This is nothing like a situation when the good people in a community like them and when those who are not good dislike them.”

子貢問曰：「鄉人皆好之，何如？」子曰：「未可也。」「鄉人皆惡之，何如？」子曰：「未可也。不如鄉人之善者好之，其不善者惡之。」

Analects 7.6:

The Master said: “Set your intention on the Dào, use virtue as your walking stick, lean on love, and allow the arts to buoy you.”

子曰：「志於道，據於德，依於仁，游於藝。」