|
Monday,
May 10, 1999 NORTHAMPTON — First Jesus, then Shakespeare. Now Confucius. Just when you think you know a guy. . . Widely considered the most influential thinker in Chinese history, Confucius has long held a place of utmost honor in that culture. While his impact differs somewhat from that of Christ or Socrates in the West, Confucius as a historical figure embodies the essence of his teachings and projects, an authority that discourages disagreement. That may be about to change, however. A recent book by E. Bruce and A. Taeko Brooks, a husband-and-wife team of scholars from Northampton, details how subsequent thinking has overlaid the original teachings of Confucius like layers of paint. The result, they argue, is a body of work that springs from numerous sources while being attributed solely to the Master. In short, Confucius was co-opted by various groups for their own purposes. Although not entirely new in Chinese scholarship, the notion is nonetheless upsetting to traditionalists. Moreover, it comes at a time of identity crisis for many Chinese, who are looking for a greater openness than the authoritarianism of their society allows. Confucius has no exact counterpart in the West, but the growing debate over his teachings resembles the arguments over the authenticity of various books in the New Testament. According to the Brookses, only one of the 20 chapters in the Analects, the canon of Confucianism, can be safely attributed to Confucius himself. This could come as a psychological blow to a society where Confucian values such as filial piety and devotion to ancestors are instilled in children at an early age. "Confucius said nothing of this," said Bruce Brooks, a research professor of Chinese at the University of Massachusetts. In the West, where his supposed teachings are usually prefaced by "Confucius say," Confucius is little more than a cliché for the "fortune cookie public," Brooks said. "You make up a saying and it fits a blank space and there you are." In China, however, the Analects form the basis of the culture's ethical and political values. "In China it's not just an old book," said Alvin P. Cohen, a UMass professor of Asian languages and literature and a colleague of Brooks. "It's one of the keystones that defines Chinese moral and ethical culture." Cohen, who was initially reluctant to accept the Brookses' work, said he was ultimately convinced by the thoroughness of their 30 years of scholarship. Their 1998 book, "The Original Analects," could be an aid to those looking to challenge the use of "Asian values" to rationalize exploitation of workers, Cohen said. Those values, he noted, are rooted in a traditional interpretation of the Analects, which emphasizes fealty to the state. "Singapore says, 'We are running a Confucian state,'" said Cohen. "As I see it, they use it to justify an aggressive and vicious form of capitalism." The Brookses also argue that Confucius, who died in 479 B.C., was not a scholar as traditionally perceived but a landed member of the warrior class who had a small but devoted group of followers. This new-look Confucius could prove unsettling to the Chinese in the way that theories linking Christ to the Essenes or Shakespeare to the nobleman Edward de Vere roil traditionalists in the West. The communist regime, which initially rejected Confucius, has readopted him after getting "the antiquarian kick," according to Brooks. It was a convenient discovery for the communists. The traditional interpretation of the Analects, with its emphasis on authoritarianism, is tailor-made for those in power. "No dictator could ask for more," Brooks said. The Brookses' interpretation, while perhaps not a "kinder and gentler" version, has nothing to do with blind obedience to the state, however. "Our Confucius is more independent-minded," said Brooks. "He wants active minds for his followers, not just memorizers." Cohen believes that view will come as a relief to some modern Chinese. "If people in East Asia look at Bruce's work and accept his interpretation," said Cohen, "that's when a homegrown foundation for democracy can start." |