Encountering China: Michael Sandel and Chinese Philosophy

- [Elizabeth] Welcome. I'm Liz Perry, the director of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and on behalf of the Harvard-Yenching Institute, it's my pleasure to welcome all of you to this round table entitled, "Encountering China: Michael Sandel and Chinese Philosophy." As you no doubt discovered when you walked into this event, there is a new book that has just been published by Harvard University Press with exactly that title. And this event was convened to coincide with that publication, hot off the press from Harvard University Press. And indeed we'll have a book signing immediately after this event for those of you who might want to have the author or one of the two editors I should say, sign the book. This book includes chapters by scholars of Chinese philosophy, located both inside and outside of China. Commenting on points of convergence and divergence between Professor Sandel's ideas and central concepts in Confucianism and to a lesser extent, Taoism. And this round table today provides us with an opportunity to deepen that discussion with leading scholars from Asia, leading scholars of East Asian thought from China, Hong Kong, Korea and Japan. It's a chance for us to think about connections and contradictions between Professor Sandel's arguments about social justice, about civic virtue, about communitarianism and republicanism, as they relate to themes in East Asia and ethical and political thought. It's also an opportunity for us to consider why it is that Professor Sandel's writings and his lectures have resonated so strongly with ordinary people and particularly younger people in China and across East Asia. Professor Sandel first visited China a little over ten years ago, in the spring of 2007 and since then, he's returned six times to China. Each of those times for high profile lectures and book tours, for press interviews and dialogues with prominent Chinese thinkers, symposia on his writings, most recently even participating in a public forum on the Beijing government's proposals to relieve traffic congestion in the city. (audience laughing) Now, unfortunately, judging from my last trip to Beijing, Michael, where it took me more than two and a half hours to get from the airport to Peking University. I don't know how effective that particular intervention was, (audience laughing) but in any case, it is a testimony to the enthusiasm with which Michael's ideas are greeted in China. The China Daily, which is the main English language newspaper in China, put it this way, "Professor Sandel is someone, who in China, has attained quote, "A level of popularity usually reserved for Hollywood movie stars and NBA players.'" (audience laughing) So we have here the "Dennis Rodman" (audience laughing) of the academy (audience members clapping) as it were. And this situation is not limited to China. Professor Sandel fills sports stadiums holding more than 14,000 people in Seoul. His lectures are aired over NHK in Japan, and so forth. And this phenomenon, of course, isn't restricted to East Asia. When I suggested to Michael today as a good date for this round table, he modestly asked whether anyone would actually show up on a Friday afternoon to engage in this kind of discussion. And the size of the audience here, I think, is proof of his appeal here at Harvard as well. So what explains this exceptional interest in Professor Sandel's work? He is a professor of government here at Harvard University with many books to his name, but there are after all other professors of government at Harvard University with many books to their name, and they don't have the rock star status, (audience members chuckling) either here at Harvard or in East Asia. Of course, a lot of the explanation lies with Michael's wonderful knack in both his writings and his lectures for making difficult philosophical arguments accessible and relevant to current everyday concerns that we all face. Some of this popularity I think, is also attributable to what I believe to be an admirable thirst on the part of the younger generation in East Asia and in this country as well. Searching for answers in a rapidly changing world, a world of commercialization, a world in which technical advances seem to be outpacing our ability to really understand them or to understand their consequences. Here at Harvard, as many of you know, Professor Sandel's huge lecture course on justice has long been one of the most popular courses on campus. And more recently, also Michael Puett's course entitled "Classical Chinese Ethical and Political Theory" has also been a tremendous draw right here at Harvard, enrolling hundreds of students every semester. Now, the popularity of these kinds of courses undoubtedly is a testimony to the quality and the charisma of the professors who teach them. But I think they're also a kind of testimony to the thirst of students around the world, for solutions to global, political and ethical dilemmas, and a willingness of students both in this country and in East Asia, to look beyond the moral conditions or the moral traditions of their own political cultures in seeking meaningful answers. We should all of course, be cognizant of our own traditions and look within them for answers to contemporary solutions. But at a time when we're wringing our hands about the rise of youthful nationalism around the world, it's also I think, refreshing and reassuring to see that there is a kind of youthful cosmopolitanism on the rise and enthusiasm, for searching beyond one's own cultural horizons to find resolutions to common problems. So we have this afternoon, a wonderful lineup of scholars from East Asia to help us navigate this global philosophical encounter. I would like to just very briefly introduce them to you. Of course, Michael Sandel is right here, the Harvard professor of whom I was speaking. But joining him today for this round table is on his immediate left, your right, Professor Joseph Chan. Professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong where he teaches political theory and is the author of many important books and articles including a book entitled "Confucian Perfectionism: a Political Philosophy For Modern Times" that was published a few years ago by Princeton University Press. And I'm proud to also mention that Professor Chan was a visiting scholar at the Harvard-Yenching Institute in 1999 to 2000. Next to Professor Chan is Professor Qu Hongmei. She is professor of Philosophy at Jilin University in China. She has the advantage of actually coming to us from a climate that's even colder (audience laughing) than what we're experiencing here today. So she told me how warm and welcome she feels here in Cambridge. (audience laughing) Her specialty is Kantian cosmopolitanism, and Marxian moral theory. And she has written insightfully on Kant's impact on contemporary political philosophy. And I'm pleased to report that she too was a visiting scholar at the Harvard-Yenching Institute in 2010 to 2011. Next to her, Professor Hahm Chaibong is president of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, Korea. Formerly he was a professor in the Political Science department of Yonsei University in Seoul. And he has written many influential works on political issues concerning East Asia. He was co-editor of a volume entitled "Confucianism For the Modern World" published by Cambridge University Press. And then next to Professor Hahm is Professor Inoue Tatsuo, who is professor of the philosophy of law at the University of Tokyo in Japan. He has written widely on questions of global justice, liberal democracy, human rights, and he has co-edited a volume that's entitled, "The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights". So we will have brief opening presentations by each of these four panelists, and then we'll give Professor Sandel an opportunity to respond to their comments. We'll allow for some back and forth interchange among the panelists. And then we expect to have plenty of time also to open up the floor to your questions that may be directed either to Professor Sandel or to any or all of the other panelists. So please join me first in welcoming here to the floor Professor Joseph Chan. (Elizabeth clapping) (audience clapping) - [Joseph] Hello. (clears throat) Speaking. You hear me clearly? Good. It's my great pleasure and honor to participate in this round table on professor Sandel's new book. And I'm grateful for Professor Perry and Harvard-Yenching Institute for the kind invitation. I only have 10 minutes so I'm not going to waste any time. On more, sort of courtesy remarks. (audience laughing) We have had a long relationship with Michael and... but this is not the time to bore you with these details. In the last chapter of this new book, Sandel opens and closes his response to critics by sharing his thoughts about how to do dialogue across cultural and philosophical traditions. The questions are, what do we want to achieve in such a dialogue? What is the best way to proceed? Sandel has reservations about an approach that takes Chinese and Western traditions of thought at a high level of generality, characterizes them in wholesale fashion and then identifies similarities and differences between them. Doing comparative philosophy in this way he says, quote, "risks stripping traditions, rich with nuance, internal tensions, and interpretive disputes of the very disagreements that make philosophy interesting." End of quote. Another quote is that, "this generalizing impulse is in some respects, anti philosophical." end quote. Sandel reminds us that comparative philosophy should be in itself an activity of philosophizing. As he says, identifying the differences of cultures and traditional thought, is not the point of the exercise. The point is rather to invite the participants to reflect critically on hard philosophical questions, and to reason together with those who disagree with that. I share a lot about this approach that Sandel has advocated for many years. And indeed, Sandel has done a superb job in inviting his audience, millions of people in the US, East Asia and the rest of the world, to critically reason together on hard philosophical questions. He challenges people's settled assumptions. He's set numerous young minds on the path of philosophy. Interestingly, in this new book, he engages us in a series of discussions with Chinese interlocutors in reverse order. Instead of posing challenges to his interlocutors, Sandel is being challenged by his Chinese philosophy scholars. And he engages his critics, but in the same spirit as he advocates in his public dialogues in public lectures. Sandel explores his critics thoughts respectfully and sympathetically. He indicates where his sympathies and sensibilities lies in those contrast, without closing off the debates unnecessarily by simply rejecting other views or restating his own. Now one of the things that I find most interesting in this dialogue, is that in responding to his critics challenges, Sandel discloses more clearly his own normative orientations and sensibilities. For many years, Sandel's major effort has been to criticize contemporary liberalism, and esteemed vision of the self, society and politics. But when facing some of the Confucian challenges expressed in this book, I can see him feeling quite uneasy about this thicker conception of the self of virtue of moral leadership that his critics advocate. So Sandel seems to be less of a liberal than many mainstream liberals, but more of a liberal than many mainstream Confucians. (audience laughing) (Sandel laughing) Actually, I find myself in similar situations. I've been a Confucian scholar and I'm a critic of contemporary liberalism. But when I was confronted by the more fundamentalist thoughts of some mainland Chinese Confucian scholars, I realized that I may have swallowed a large dose of the poison of liberalist already. - [Audience Member] No. (audience chuckling) But let me talk about Sandel, not myself. (audience chuckling) When Li Chenyang, one of the authors in the book, wants a strong community with members sharing a thick conception of the common good, and giving priority of place to harmony. Sandel says he takes clammer, dissonance, and moral disagreements as signs of a healthy pluralism in a community. Whereby Jonchong*** wants more elitism and meritocracy than democracy, Sandel prefers to put faith on democratic deliberation by fellow citizens about the meaning of the good life. When Huang Yong and Chen Lai argue that political virtue and personal moral virtue are more or less the same, and that the state should not hesitate in embracing and promoting full moral virtues, Sandel feels the need to make a more nuanced differentiation of the two sets of virtues. In terms of ideal normative orientations, I may be closer to the Confucian side than to the side of Sandel. But in terms of realistic aspirations, I have quite a lot of sympathy with his sensibilities. You may call these sensibilities liberal and democratic sensibilities, but I think I might understand more where this sensibilities come from. I like to call these sensibilities, sensibilities of the modern. Modernity, to put it in most simplistic terms, means that this enchantment of the world, the loss of the sacred, the disappearance of the aristocratic class and it's accompanied virtues and rituals, and the breakdown of social authorities across society. In many ways, liberalism and democracy are just the products of modernity, and some would say they are the most fitting response to it. Now, to me, the central challenge for Confucianism is sociological rather than normative. How can a thick community constituted by a shared vision of virtue and a common good be possible without the state engaging in ideological domination? Many Confucian scholars, myself included, have argued that traditional Confucian insights and values can have a lot to contribute to the modern world. But we have yet to grapple with the sociological challenge of advancing the Confucian agenda in modern society. However, even Sandel's more moderate civic republicanism is not entirely free from this challenge of modernity, I would say, although his tasks might be a bit less daunting than Confucian. To give just an example, he insists in finding the telos or purposes of our social practices to settle questions of distributive justice. But we could ask this question to Sandel, in a disenchanted secular world where people disagree often very strongly among themselves about the very purpose of the social and political order, the hope of reaching agreement by public deliberation of these hard philosophical questions, seems a little unrealistic. Now in the face of the challenge of modernity, I'm not saying that Confucian should therefore give up the idea conceptions of good life or society. To give them up, is to give up the most noble part of our humanity according to Confucius. But any serious advocates of Confucianism like myself and it contributors in this book or advocates of civic republicanism like Sandel, should tell people why the idea is not only attractive, but also feasible, even in such an inhospitable conditions of modernity. Let me close by going back to my first point. Sandel says the point of dialogue is to promote a genuine kind of philosophizing that challenges unsettled assumptions and engages people with reason. But this critical unsettling nature of philosophizing might have an unintended consequence of reinforcing moral disagreement, which, if not carefully understood or conducted, could easily erode whatever are the remaining shared values that can serve as a foundation for moral regeneration. In the book's forward, Evans Osnos told the story of a girl named Shi Ye who said that Sandel's books and lectures are a key to open her mind and doubt and question everything. Now the key word I think is everything. One may question not just about injustice or immorality, but also virtues and morality. Many students have told the same story to me. After taking philosophy classes, they find that they can't believe in anything. (audience laughing) So philosophizing is a double-edged sword. It may strengthen one's conviction after critical reflection, but it may also lead to despair and disbelief. From a sociological point of view, this free and ceaseless activity of doubting and questioning, while taking place in a society already lacking strong social forces or social forms of life to support virtues and a shared good could just easily undermined the kind of shared community that Sandel himself wants to reinvigorate. So I want to end my speech with a question for Sandel. Other than promoting free and public philosophizing, what could we realistically do to foster Confucian or civic republican ideals of virtues and community in modern society? - Thank you. - [Elizabeth] Thank you very much. (clapping) - Very good. You did great. (audience clapping) - [Elizabeth] Professor Qu. - Thank you (pop) (pop) (pop) (pop) - There you go. - Thank you. - You're welcome. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I really appreciate the invitation of Professor Perry and the Harvard-Yenching Institute. It's my honor to be here to take part in this event. And eight years ago, I participate in a similar event at Boston University, which was for the publication of the book, titled "China Today, China Tomorrow." At that time, I had a question, since it was a book aiming at showing various aspects of China's development, why all the papers in the volume or only in the context of domestic politics, economy and the Society of China? Why there were no papers on culture and philosophical change in China? So right now, we have the book in counting China at hand, I think we can treat with the question you another way. So the title of my presentation is "Chinese Philosophy and Philosophy in China Today." And as to Chinese philosophy, I want to talk about two points. One is mentioned by several scholars in the book. The other is as important as the first one, I think, but unfortunately, not mentioned much by the authors. The first one is about this philosophical approach in Chinese philosophy and I think it is moral anthropology. In the in counting China, quite a few of Chinese scholars and experts in Chinese philosophy, bring about dialogues between Chinese thought and professor Sandels thought. In the context of Confucian philosophy and taoist philosophy. As most of the readers notice, the tradition of Chinese philosophy is centrally concerned with questions about how we ought to live. What goes into a worthwhile life? This is actually practical, I think practical philosophy or moral philosophy or broader sense. However, there are no definite moral laws or categorical imperative in the sense of Immanuel Kant express that clearly in Chinese philosophy. So the question is, how can Chinese philosophy work in the practical life? Professor Sandel's observation is that Confucian and measures do not enunciate abstract principles but convey they are moral teaching, through stories and the particular cases. Definitely, there is no universal law raised in Chinese philosophy. Instead, we can find the fundamental rules in it in the moral discourse, and the dialogues that the masters tought to the dispose the father's to the sons and the ancestors to the descendants in their doctrines and family instructions. This is not metaphysics of morals, but moral anthropology, which plays an important role in making the canonical text accessible to a much broader range of readers. Then the usually obscure philosophy text see "Critique of Pure Reason". So the second point is about the contribution of Chinese philosophy to cosmopolitanism. When I spend the year from 2010 to 2011, at Harvard-Yenching Institute, I worked on cosmopolitanism. Kant's firstly a moral cosmopolitan in so far as he views that all rational beings are citizens of a super sensible moral world, who are free and equal co legislators. Kant then defends our political version of cosmopolitanism for perpetual peace. However, Kant's cosmopolitan idea is based on his view of eco-rational view, in understanding the citizens in the Republican state and the citizens in a word or state. So someone calls it individualist cosmopolitanism and John Rawls's version in "The Law of Peoples" I think, follow the same logic has Kant. So Alistair McIntyre as a communitarian is anti-cosmopolitan because he believes that our morality is framed in terms of the membership of some particular community with some particular social, political and economic structure. Professors Sandel also argues that individualism generally fails to deal adequately with the problem of personal identity in his liberalism and limits of justice. But we can find our communitarian cosmopolitanism in Confucian philosophy with his idea of (foreign language) or under heaven and (foreign language) the grand union, Confucius made the blueprint of the cosmopolitan society as the grand union, in which the unity of heaven and human being reached a level of harmony. So he also raised a practical plan for people to achieve their own perfection and the harmonious relation between man and nature and among different persons with the understanding (mumbles), which is the embodiment of the spirit of heaven. Since families are basic cell in the Chinese society dealing with the relationship between family and the other groups is the most important task of a person. So Confucius method to achieve the grand union is to persuade people to treat others as members of their own families, and then to make people all over the world live as if they are part of one big family. Professor Jolteon believes that in this way, the world is not an organization of states, but a word institution. From the perspective Tien Sha all the people in the world can reach and share the common goal of the word because tien sha belongs to all of us. According to my reading of Professor Sandels writings, I think he might be interested in this idea and there will be much more to talk about between him and the Chinese philosophers. Finally, I want to say something about philosophy in China today. More and more Chinese philosophers agree that the highest aim in China's philosophy today, is not to make comparative research among different resources, but to reach a higher level in understanding human life by combining different philosophical wisdom. Jonathan Worf, the author of "Why Remarks Today" visited a GD University last year, when we talked about the possibility of mutual communication among Chinese philosophy, Marxist philosophy and Western philosophy, which are dominant parts in the economic world of China today, he raised the question. How to solve the conflict between the equal concern on real man in Marxism philosophy and the definite existence of the social hierarchy in Chinese philosophy? I think this is also a question to the relation between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy. In the traditional way, the Chinese people were educated to obey the social order in a teen society with little reflection on reasons. But nowadays, Chinese people are on the way of modernity in the era of globalization. There is no way back to the time of Confucius and allowed. So it is necessary for the Chinese people to recognize the value of democracy, liberty and human rights in a reasonable way on the basis of their own cultural structure. So Professor Chan claims out there is no way of accepting right-based political thinking in Confucian philosophy. So we need to think about what Chinese can learn from the Western philosophy. In the encounter in China, Professor Li Chen Young comments that Professor Sandel's version of communitarianism is too thin, compared to the conception of community in traditional Chinese philosophy. Well, Professor Bytom don't believe that Professor Sandel's version is too thick for the society of strangers. I mean, the liberals, society. I think Professor Sandel's version it's just the right (audience laughs) for China's philosophy today, because it is closer to the spirit state of Chinese, then traditional Chinese philosophy and also liberal series. So there's so much that we can learn from Professor Sandel. Thank you (audience clapping) - Thank you very much, Professor Qu. Next Professor Hahm. - [Hahm] Thank you professor Perry and the Yenching Institute. Thank you for inviting me. It's great honor to participate this panel on Michael Sandel's new book. I wanted to title my very short talk as why I stopped being in Confucian. (audience laughs) - [Sandel] That's news to me. (chucking) - Yeah. Yeah, it's news to Joseph too but, because as Dr. Perry mentioned during her introduction, I had been an active, very active in promoting Confucianism. I think up 'til about 15, 20 years ago and when Daniel Abell and I myself co-edited the book that you mentioned "Confucianism for the Modern World" and a project in which Joseph also participated. It was a time when it was very, when we talked about Confucianism, and we would encounter Chinese intellectuals and most of them would say, why would you? Why are you talking about Confucianism? Except those in Hong Kong. (audience laughs) Because they thought for even 20 years ago for Chinese intellectuals, Confucianism just was still this very feudal philosophy among others of course Mao and the May Fourth Movement have pointed to as the cause of all the ills for the Chinese civilization it has been chucked as forcefully as possible. Now, it's fascinating to see this book, in which so many Chinese intellectuals have now become Confucian in very, (audience laughs) very short years. It's something Joseph already described. And I think the unease that Michael, Professor Sandel feels, of course Joseph and others also detect is something that I feel very, strongly, perhaps even even stronger. And so when liberalism was the default position criticizing liberalism, either from a civic republican communitarian or Confucian point of view, seemed like a good way to enrich the discussion. But also in a sense, sort of a safe intellectual thing to do. But when you realize that's not necessarily the case, then attacking liberalism from whatever perspective is a very different enterprise. And this sort of brings me to the issue of what are intellectuals are they supposed to be how sensitive are they supposed to be to political change? If you're a Confucian do you do Confucianism all the way through despite its political and social ramifications? Or do you change your position, if you think that it has different or sometimes wrong implications? I think one way to describe what Joseph just talked about in terms of Michael Sandel's encounter with Confucianism is about especially regards to too thick the conception of that Michael doesn't have thick enough of a conception of community is, be careful what you wish for, Michael, is my wish. Now, let me go back to what the three sources of my anxiety about, and why is a Confucian is and why I stop being Confucian. Because as you'll notice when Liz Perry introduced me, I'm running a policy think tank and what's a Confucian, former Confucius scholar doing... So it's sort of a effort to introduce explain on my biography or intellectual migration but when I read this book one quote that that really struck me, that came back to me was, and I couldn't find the exact quote but it's some paraphrasing, it's Joseph Levinson's quote about Confucianism and he said, something like this he said, "The moment Confucianism started to decline in China, is when Confucian in Chinese intellectuals started to study Confucianism, because it was Chinese. Not because it was universe universal philosophy." And I think that's what I find in this book, that the Chinese philosophers are engaging Confucianism, because it's Chinese. As at least one of the main motivating factors as to why they do this. And I think that comes through very strongly. Secondly, as a political scientist, sort of doing a political, social political analysis of this. I really find what China. this book sort of representing the phase that China is going through in a different context, this may be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp but for those of you know, something about Korean history, I really think this is sort of a Chinese Park Chung Hee moment. (audience member chuckling) Now, I guess it perhaps it's easier if you think of the Ligua new moment in Singapore. That is South Korea after having going through rapid industrialization and liberalisation for about a decade, all through the 60s. By the early 70s, President Park Geun-hye who had engineered much of that rapid growth, decided that there was just too much liberalization taking place too fast. And, he stood he imposed emergency decree, he arrogated Power for Life and started this very authoritarian regime. And in not only did he establish these very basically police state, but what he also did, of course, was strongly start to advocate nationalism, and of course, Confucianism. As the philosophy that Korean should embrace as this tradition that we should rediscover, because Koreans had also chopped Confucianism. As the epitome of this feudal philosophy that had always prevented career from going modernizing itself. So, the parallel is just quite striking and also very disturbing. Third one is, what China seems to be going through or its its current engagement with Confucianism, is another self Lee Hong Jong moment, a self strengthening moment, to Tun ki Shim on moment, that is Chinese core and Western means technology, that there is a way in which that morally philosophically the Chinese core is always superior. And you could always bring in western technology, industrial whatever, as a crew Truman's, to strengthen and support the the core Chinese world. And we call that young window where self strengthening movement. I always contrast that, for me the the striking contrast of that particular way of encountering modernity was of course, it was with the Meiji Restoration, which was a different way of encountering modernity, which was go modernity all the way. Westernization all the way, I think is one way to characterize them compared to the self strengthening mode of China. Now, we all know what happened at the end of the day. That Japan did go through a thorough industrialization, westernization and was able to achieve its own version of modernity, which in many striking ways have preserved its own tradition almost better than any other East Asian countries that have struggling-- (mumbles) (audience laughs) That's a debate okay, that's a question for you okay? You get to questions later, okay? (laughs) So, is this another way another Chinese moment where it finds an excuse to stop thorough modernization the realization? We know that in a strange way there resonances of this in how to be how to be a good communist, right? Lyosha Ci and the way, even Marxist tried to combine Confucianism and Marxism. Is this something very Chinese who here it says, okay, we need to stop here. There's some core Chinese thing, even if we have to revive it wholesale in order to preserve the Chinese worldview. So, these are the three very political resonances that I get from this book. And again, what is the world we want? And in a sense, I have discovered my own liberal roots, and I think I have also swallowed that liberal poison much sooner earlier and deeper than I had ever thought because of I really find myself increasingly veering towards the liberal position and all these issues. And starting to see all these dangerous signs in any kind of philosophy that that emphasizes community and of course, a much thicker, even thicker sense of community than the one Michael Sandel advocates. Let me stop there. - Thank you very much. (claps) Professor Inoue. - The focus of the discussion today is on this book, "Michael Sandel and Chinese philosophy." I was wondering why I was invited to join the panel because I'm not an expert in Chinese philosophy. But in some of my other words, I made a kind of an imminent critique on Michael Sandels political philosophy, from a liberal viewpoint and discussed political and socio-economic implications of the so called Liberal Communitarian Debates in the context of Japan. I also published some papers where I criticized and the dichotomy of Asia and the western civilizations to find a common ground for human rights and democracy. So I understand that my role in this colloquium is to widen the framework of our debates in such a way that philosophical boy is different from the Dallas in Sunday vs on the points and the social concern of another agent society dependent on China, can be incorporated in our endeavor to deliver up the cross cultural philosophical discussions presented in this book. I'd like to make some comments to perform this role of mine. In the book, liberalism is depicted as a common target or beaten while both for Chinese philosophy and Sandel theory. Tondo Mbae showed some sympathy to Rosie and liberalism, in the conclusion of his show of chapter two of this book, but he makes his claim in a very brief and brushing way. Anyway, this is an exception that makes the general anti-liberal stance of the book more vivid. The different to philosophical camps, Chinese philosophy and Sandel's young republicanism may be able to make an alliance by sharing the same enemy that is liberalism. This may be one certainty to bridge the gap between the two different philosophical perspectives, but I don't think it is a good way. If we are to explore for new philosophical horizon in which people with a variety of perspectives can be engaged and sincere public liberation beyond the Matrix preconception. The problem is not just that liberal perspectives are excluded from the outset. A more serious problem is that liberalism is unfairly caricatured as a philosophy that supports the socially responsible self-centeredness of deracinated individuals, or the greedy pursuit of self interest in the unregulated market economy. It seems to me that these charges against liberalism in board or something like to use Japanese phrase, (speaking in foreign language) This is not only philosophically unfair, but politically dangerous, given the concentration in the world, as you mentioned. Anti-liberal passions and movements such as religious intolerance, ethnic discrimination, show with like America fires, (audience laughs) and hate speech against minorities and dissidents, amounting in the current world, including even the western developed countries. To be sure, Sandel and other contributed to the book, do not welcome these tendencies, saying that they are standpoints can admit of diversity and tourism. But this claim seems to be dependent on their own liberal interpretation or interpretation of Republican Confucian and doubtless values. The philosophical and negation of liberalism is bound to undermine liberal bulwark against the current dangerous tendencies to incite interests and discrimination. I think that our more fruitful and more urgent task is to redefine or re identify liberalism in such a way that is commitment to open mindedness, non discrimination, and free critical discussion can be more clearly in advance and separated from the negative stereotypes unduly impose on that. If we carry out this task, liberalism will become more acceptable both for Sandel and the advocates of Chinese philosophy and a wider and sounder form of philosophical rapprochement than their anti-liberal Alliance can be brought about. I have developed my own redefinition of liberalism along this line in my earlier works. I cannot enter into the full expression by view here, but let me present some of my key points of my view. Let me allow to use some philosophical jargon here. Three points. First. The fundamental value of a liberation is not freedom, much less negative freedom, but just liberation is committed to the primacy of justice over freedom. Justice here means not one of the competing conceptions of justice like utilitarianism, libertarianism where he can't hear his rights, but the common concept of justice that underlies and constraints these competing conceptions of justice. Normative core over the common concept of justice is the prohibition of non-universalized discrimination. It implies the test of perspectiveal as well as positional responsibility that can be formulated as a falling Marxism. Examine whether your conduct or claims to others can be justified, for the reasons that you could not reject, even if you have their positions and possibilities, provided they are willing to apply the same responsibility test to themselves. Justice based liberalism In this sense, is diametrically opposed to self-centeredness and licentious greed. It requires us to make critical self-examination to undertake accountability to other persons affected by our conducting claims and to show fairness and open mindedness to other persons with positions and perspectives different from ours. It provides the best interpretation of two historical sources of liberalism. I mean enlightenment, as critical rationalism as opposed to dogmatic rationalism and paradigms as open mindedness to other persons, as opposed to the moves given the type of co-existence through strategic compromise. I think that it is possible to reinterpret most Christian Golden Rule "Do to others as you would be done by" and the Confucian counterpart, "do not to do to others "what you would not want them to do to yourself." In this liberal way, by adding the counterfactual antecedent. If you were others, with your perspective, as well as your position s to these two Muslims. Second, anti-perfectionism is a quality of the prospect for reversibility, tests of justice. But this has nothing to do with the concepts in love with the unshakable self, that Sandel critically ascribed to liberal liberalism. Sandel's own conceptions of the reflectively situate itself or the self interpreting being implies the individual person's responsibility to interpret our conception of the good life and the ugly the vanity of the proliferation of competing interpretations, of traditional he and consumption with a good life in a given political community. These implications of are a reason, a good reason to accept the liberal anti perfectionism. But all that it means, is that a virtuous life should not be legally enforced or stipulated. Political liberation about what is a good life can be conducted without resorting to legal regulations. Moreover, even from this anti-perfectionist perspective, legal regulations can be used to facilitate people to exercise their right to develop and pass you a verge of life, as they consider it. Just as their right to pursue happiness, as distinct from the right to happiness itself can be legally protected. Third and last point. The conception of the individual rights as beetles over the collective goal has often been criticized as a symbol of liberal egocentrism. This criticism fails because it only looks at the conflict between the individual interests and the coming out of responsibility on walk. With reference to the social maladies of contemporary Japan, which I call the poverty of Rights Brian criminality. I advocated a redefined conception of individual rights. As a normative device to strike a balance between conflicting responsibilities, that individuals have four different spheres of community to which they belong. Such as families, neighborhood, workplace, clubs, professional associations, local national communities and global human society. Its points can be briefly shown in the following way. If a specific communal sphere requires too much emotion from a person, he would not be able to perform his responsibility for other communal fields. When the so called Hai shi hui hampanizm as a communitarian, regimentation of capitalism prevailed in Japan. This problem became serious with a dissolve that the companies which became workers constituted community, prosper, while families and civil society are undermined. Individual rights as a beetle over excessive demand from a sudden communists appear is indispensable for a person to meet competing responsibilities for other communists appears in a balanced way so that he can mature his community. Sandel presented a conception of the multiply he treated the self in the last few pages of his book, Democracy is this content. I think that this view of multiplicity of our communal belongingness can lead him to accept my redefined conceptions of individual rise. I wish Sandel would say, yes, that's all, you are free to buy it. (audience laughing and clapping) - Thank you very much, professor Inoue . We have four I think really quite fascinating reactions. To this book, one sort of Goldilocks reaction and Sandel got it just right, not too thick or not too thin. And then three other quite different liberal critiques, some asking for the feasibility and the applicability of some of these ideas, and others giving different definitions of what liberalism is. And how congruent with these ideals. Professor Sandel's own ideas are. So let me turn to Michael Sandel for his reactions. - Well, thank you, Liz. And I'm so grateful to the panelists for traveling all this way and for engaging in such a stimulating way with the ideas in the book. And how to respond. Well, let me begin with the very pointed challenge that Joseph ended with. Which is, what can we realistically do? Can I give even a single example of what we can realistically do? To foster in the modern world with all its challenges, either a Confucian or civic republican virtue. Here's one. The short answer is civic education broadly conceived. But that's very abstract. So I would like to give you one example. That goes back to the time. When I was coaching Little League Baseball. My son, Adam, was a baseball player and I coached his team from the time they were very young, up to, until they reached High School. And when they were oh, maybe 11 years old. I noticed a problem. That kept happening again and again. All of the kids playing baseball would love to try to hit home runs, that was the most heroic thing imaginable. But when they were playing in the field trying to field the ball and catch the ball, they often had trouble paying attention. And so I created a kind of prize. And the prize was not for the person who hit a home run, or made the most spectacular play, but if, when trying to field the ball at that age, especially, it was not very successful if a ball came your way and you tried to field it off and it would go through your legs. And so it's important to have other players come in case the ball came through your legs to field it and pick it up. So I said anyone, if anyone succeeds in backing up a play, and redeeming the error of a teammate and making it out, there would be a reward for the entire team. And the reward was a Snickers candy bar. Now at age 11, Snickers candy bar was quite a strong reward. (audience laughing) But the reward was only conferred for an attempt to help to play as a team, not to seek individual heroics. And to try to attach, I tried to attach at least some small glory and honor to that team play. And it worked. It worked. Soon all the 11 year olds were backing up their teammates. And we won the championship. And I suppose you could say that this cultivated that kind of civic republican virtue of contributing to the common good, and also a Confucian virtue. Being part of a team of a community. The political significance of this was not lost on some of my conservative friends. By conservative I mean ardently individualistic, capitalist friends. Because when this story was written up in the newspaper, several of them wrote to me and said, complained, "Sandel, you're ruining baseball. (audience laughs) "You're destroying the individual heroics that "are at the heart of the American pastime." Now, I would I suppose, in a sense, they would say that maybe this was encouraging a kind of a liberal attitude, maybe not. Maybe not. But there is in small gestures and small forms of civic education as well as large ones. There are ways of teaching virtue not just in schools, not just didactically but through the organization of everyday life, and if social life. And that's where I think the most powerful forms of the cultivation of the kind of virtue I think, civic life requires can best be found. So that's my reply, Joseph, to your question. Your challenge. in some ways the other three presentations, raise a question about, not just about academic philosophy and whether liberalism is a necessary alternative to conservative our hierarchical Confucian tradition that is, but also, it's in a way these presentations were all about philosophy in the world philosophy as lived. And I think that's the right emphasis. We have different views perhaps about how best to describe the philosophies by which we live in the West, in China, in other parts of Asia. But here's my general reply to the worries the very strong worries expressed especially by Chaibong and by Inous Tatsuo. But before I get to that, I wanna say that Professor choose presentation, given her interest in Marx's moral philosophy. Leads me to want to hear more about whether she thinks that today in China, Marxism or Confucianism is the more powerful legitimating vision or ideal? So, that's a question that occurred to me listening to Professor Qu. The response I would put to 'em, Chaibong and Inoue Tatsuo is this, when I first began traveling in East Asia, I noticed that most of the people who invited me, the professor's the hosts disagreed with my critique of liberalism. And thought that it was potentially dangerous for their societies. And told me sometimes more, sometimes less explicitly, that the task really was to instill liberalism, in societies that were hierarchical, and conservative, or feudal as some of them saw those societies. And they ended they invited me even though they thought what I had to say was dangerous and on the wrong track and what they were doing. So I kept noticing this. And my main reply was, in that so actually talks about in his always vivid rhetoric talks about the unholy alliance of Confucians and Civic Republicans. I added that. trying to make a point by advanced by sharing the same enemy. The enemy being liberalism. My reply to that is and Tatsuo knows this deep down. (audience laughs) That actually we have an alliance. And that is that what we share, as philosophers, despite our philosophical disagreements is that we are both of us, leaning against the dominant, what we take to be the dominant self images of our societies. Leaning against what we take to be the excesses of our societies. And that leads us to different philosophical viewpoints. But perhaps, that purpose that origin of the philosophical perspectives we advance, is a deep kind of sharing that goes beyond the actual positions and views. So that's, that was one thing that occurred to me as I listened, especially say 15, 20 years ago when I would travel to East Asia. That what I had in common with my philosophical friends, if not the actual position was this critical stance toward the excesses as we saw them of our respective societies. But now China, it poses a different kind of challenge today. Because what I find in China is that in many ways, the audiences with whom I've been gauged specially on what money can't buy on the moral limits of markets. Ther pro-market intuitions and enthusiasms are as thoroughgoing, as any, I've encountered anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of the United States. When I travel to, Europe or to land America or to Japan. The moral intuitions in the critique of markets are much closer to mine. Whereas, with Chinese audiences as with American audiences, the critique of markets and a market individualism runs very deep. And some when I when I gave some examples to test this, for example, about like about price gouging should there be laws preventing sellers of goods from raising the price in the wake of a national disaster. The price of a flashlight or of bottled water or have a snow shovel after a blizzard umbrellas, even after a rain storm. In most European countries in Canada and most of Latin America and in Japan, if I say how many think there's something wrong with raising the price. Most people majority will say there's something wrong, it's unfair and accept him in the US, and in China, where most people think that's the way the market works. That's supply and demand. The shopkeeper could have anticipated this and stock more shovels and made more money and so on. And so this leads me to my second reply to, It's really too late to ask for a counter reply to the worry that the critique of liberalism and the growing attention to Confucianism is a moral source, moral tradition is that these are dangerous. I think that the growing interest in the Confucian tradition in China is important and worth encouraging. Because without some attempt to grapple with and reinterpret for the modern world, the moral traditions hold the deepest claim on societies. The real danger is that societies given over to market capitalism and the self understandings that go with them, wind up with a moral vacuum of meaning. After a certain period when GDP rises, people begin to ask, and I see this in China as a visitor as an outsider, as an observer. People begin to ask is this all there is? GDP alone affluence alone, prosperity alone, are not sufficient sources of meaning either to sustain a good life or to hold the society together. I think not only ordinary members of the public but the leadership in China is aware of this. And in GDP ism is not inadequate or assist self-sustaining ideology or legitimating (phone ringing) public philosophy and in the absence of moral meaning there, that empty space will be filled by the default alternative, which is not liberalism or Confucianism. It's kind of vengeful, strident nationalism. That is the default source of meaning, that fills places whose moral culture has become hollowed out. And I think we see that tendencies in that direction today, in the US, in China, and in many other places, which is why I think the project of trying to find a public philosophy rooted in, renovated but rooted in a traditions of moral sources and meaning is enormously important if we were to create a kind of public cultures hospitable to the kinds of human relations and political arrangements that liberals in the critics of liberalism share. So really, I would like to put that in a way as a reply, but also as a question or a challenge to see whether especially the critics of the Confucian turn, have suggested-- - [Perry] Thank you very much, Michael. (audience claps) I'll turn back to the panelists. I guess this very interesting interchange about whether we have a moral vacuum in China and East Asia and if so, whether it's wise to fill it with Confuciunsm. I think, may resonate sound differently to those familiar with certain episodes in East Asian history. We have after all the Japanese effort and state shintoism during the Second World War and we had right at that same moment in China genkai shacks effort to combine Confucianism with sort of Kwazii fascism, the blue shirts in China and so forth. So, there are historical episodes in East Asian history where this revival of Confucianism I think, had rather unhappy outcomes, which may be part of the reason that some of our East Asian colleagues are more averse to the idea than then we may be. But let me turn back to the panelists. I don't know professor Qu would you like to begin and answer about whether it is Marx or Confucius that has greater moral authority or greater than legitimising power in contemporary China? - Okay, thank you for your question. It's hard to me to answer this question, which one is more powerful. But I think what I want to say that first of all are in China right now, people cares about moral philosophy not in the traditional way. I mean, in the 1980s, there's a kind of reform for the so called tax book, because the tax book was written and the principle of Soviet Union's interpretation on Marxist. But I think the 1980s there was a great change in our Marxism of philosophy in the academic world in China. So people try to re consider Marxist in the perspective as a Marxist own writings, and also in the prospectus Chinese philosophy. Because Marxist philosophy and Chinese philosophy shares the some common good like both of this kind of sauce to sauce hope to give some practical experience to the ordinary people. Like, as I say that in Chinese philosophy is a moral anthropology and it's a cultural structure in Chinese people. So this is a precondition for Chinese people to consider Marxist philosophy. Because Marxist philosophy also hope to solve the problems for the workers the proletariat. And Marxist philosophy cares not about the problem of science. I mean, the classical Marxist philosophy considering the problem of science, but Marxist philosophy considering the real life, the real condition, life of human beings. So that's what Marxist philosophy and the Chinese philosophy share. I mean, that's the common good of this to kind of sauce. And the other one is that Marxism philosophy, is open with practice. So it's not a kind of doctrine of fix the doctrine. So with the Chinese experience is actually the achievement that China China made in this years. The Chinese scholars hopes that they can understand or interpret Marx's of philosophy in a Chinese way. So that's what I can answer for this question. Thank you. - [Perry] Thank you. Should we ask Joseph Chan if he has some... Or ask each of the panel is to just quickly respond to Michael's comments and we'll open (mumbles) brothers, Joseph? - Yes, I thank Michael for the wonderful example that he gave. On a theoretical level, I agree that at the end of the day moral changes would mostly come from individual agents who believe in the in the morality that they want to advocate and act upon it through interaction and association with others. But as a political theorists or generally people who like to think about how institutions can be structured in order to make possible on a grander scale, this kind of moral education. I think we should go beyond a little bit the this individual examples of moral education. So what social institutions do we want in a pleuralistic society that can do the job that you want society to do? - Right - So that that's the question I'm still interested in? - Yeah, well, the very brief answer would be to create more public spaces in class mixing social institutions within civil society, creating civic spaces, public gathering places, to lean against the tendency today for the affluent and those of modest means, to live essentially separate lives. I think that's the single on a large scale, biggest way of enabling people to encounter one another in a way that creates a sense of sharing in a common life. - [Inoue] Can I say something? - [Perry] Please, Professor Inoue. - [Inoue] Michael said that, I talked about an unholy alliance between the Confucianism and Sandel but I didn't say that. (laughs) Let me say two things about this. Well, in 2009, we had a conference featuring on Michael Sandel's political philosophy at the Chiba University in Japan. And at that time, I was invited to make a comment and the Joseph was there too. And in that presentation why I said that, well, what I call the Universalistic turn of Michael Sandel from the elevator, or Apollo communitarianism, is quite well, philosophically justifiable and even more liberal than the Roseann political liberalism. And at the end of my presentation, I said, welcome to the Authentic liberal Club to Michael. (laughing) He just smiled at me without saying thank you. (loud laughing) But that's my interpretation that Michaels philosophy is, well, it's one of the very good version of liberalism (chuckling) if properly reinterpreted. (laughng) Anyway, I won't go into this point. But let me say something about Confucianism. As I said, I'm not an expert in Confucianism, but I'd like to say something about Confucian because the advocates of Confucianism, who contributed to this book, well, presenting the view, a poor view, improper view of Confucianism. Well, in my judgment. This judgment of mine was formed by learning from the Japanese scholars who are specializing in the history of Chinese and Japanese political forward. Like Armarium Amaso were (mumbles) and as far as this conception of the Confucianism is well concerned. Well, there are a lot of the competing interpretations of what Confucianism is all about even within this position. And there is a kind of liberal potentials in this position. And among the western scholars like William Fielder Du Barry Published a book iberal tradition in China, and he talked about the Neo Confucian liberalism or something like that. But anyway, to generalize, Confucianism is committed to moral control of politics. And it's not just me that ruler govern the people by ruler's own virtue. Rulers virtue itself must be always critically checked. Rulers must be under moral control of his own greatest scholars and people. So, let me mention one important aspect of the Confucianism. I don't know how to translate this term into English in Japanese or Confucian term use (speaks in foreign language) Anyway, it is a principle that the world, is the world's world's (speaks in foreign language) which means the world is not private property of the king, or the Emperor. If the Emperor abuses his political power, to pursue his own private interests at the sacrifice of public interest, then he would lose moral entitlement to govern the world. And so in Confucian tradition, revolution, or even the killing monarch, are justified in this life. This kind of very critical and even revolutionary element of the Confucianism is totally unafraid neglect in the book. So if well properly re-interpreted the alliance between Confucian and Sandel's (mumbles), quite welcome even for the person like me. (laughing) - [Perry] Professor Hahm? - Yes, Michael, I think you're absolutely right we are all reacting to, or against the dominant self images of our societies and against the excesses of our societies. I think one one interesting way to look at what it means to encourage the revival of Confucianism in East Asia. I'm thinking more in terms of Korea here but there is also an article in this volume which written by Robin Wong which deals with a gender issue and Confucianism. Now she has a very interesting interpretation of Confucianism and what it means for women and gender issues. But of course, if you were to talk about reviving Confucianism in Korea, the biggest constituency against it would be women. Because for them, Confucianism is almost misogynous. Because given how it is still deeply rooted in Korea where 70% of Korean still families perform ancestor worship, we're the only country in the world that actually persist in performing worship according to Chuchi Jolly exactly to the letter. Now, what that means socially is that of course on lunar, thanksgiving a new year, coming up soon, of course, we have this massive migration of families all going back home to their villages, which means that even if you were to see woman CEO of a major corporation. What do you do when you go back to your in laws house? You You go into the kitchen and you cook, you prepare for the ancestor worship. It's what is the dominant self image is of the society. And so it would be interesting to see what how Chinese women react to this particular revival of Confucians and other than the way that Robin wants them. - [Perry} Thank you very much. I think we're going to turn now to the audience. But first, I think in the audience is one of the contributors to the book, if I'm not mistaken. Professor Drew Whaling and I wonder Professor Drew, if you would like to say any very brief comments, either about your contribution or about your reactions to the panel, and then we'll open it up more broadly. - [Drew] Thank you so much for this great opportunity and it's my great honor to have one of my article to be included in Michael's new book. I have been studying Michael's political philosophy since I was a doctoral candidate. I think I would like to, I prefer to label Michael's political philosophy as the republicanism rather than communitarianism. Not because it's too narrow or too thick or too thin, but because it's too narrow to include Michael's political philosophy. Hey, 'em (mumbles) professors Sandel emphasize on the constitute self and written civic virtue, the relationship politics and morality, which make it more suitable for us to category his political philosophy as republicanism rather than communitarianism and which make it in his political philosophy corresponds somehow to Confucianism. And I think that's one of the reason why he is so popular in China and because most of the Chinese are easy to accept most of his ideas such as civic virtue, his emphasize on loyalty and patriotism, and the relationship between politics and morality. And so, in the academic field, many people doing research on liberalism. And some are doing research on the relationship between Liberalism and Confucianism. As they are trying to combine the two theories. And in some of other intellectuals are doing some research on Conservatism but I don't think there are too many people are doing some research on Republicanism. I think it is a valuable political theory we Chinese should pay more attention to. So that's why I don't want as a very young Chinese scholar, I don't want to label myself as a Liberalist (audience laughs) or Confucianist and other theory but I do want to combined some theories from other especially more emphasized on civic republicanism. But I do have some doubts to Michael's observation about people's reaction in China. I think that your sample is limited because in China, the people who have the chance to attend your lecture, are students from very famous universities and awesome SMEs from ethnic from commerce ethnic. They are successful civilians or people, so they pay less attention. It's easier for them to pay less attention to fairness or justice. They will their used to pursue individual success. So, if you have next time, if you have chance to have a bigger audience, a bigger composition of audience, I think maybe you have a different answer. - [Michael] Great, yeah. Thank you for that. (audience laughing) - Thank you - [Perry] So next time we'll send him out to (foreign language) (audience laughing loudly) see how they react to this (mumbles) Okay, I think we will open the floor and I will ask people... I think there are, at least a couple of microphones around us. That's correct. Who has the microphones? We have just one microphone here do we have two? - [Woman] We have two. - Okay and so, I will ask you to please be very brief, to first identify yourself briefly, then be very brief. And if you wish to direct your question to a particular person to please do so. But I'll take a number of different questions and then we'll turn back to the panelists. So please raise your hands We'll take one right there. - [Man] I have two. - One question and please identify yourself and be quiet. - [Man] Okay. Just one question? - [Perry] Yes. - Okay, I'll try to make two to one then. Chan from medical school, actually. So I guess there's two questions I have are related. The first one was initially, what was your initial motivation to write the book? Why now? And you've been working on justice and philosophical questions, but why now the contrast between the sort of the Western culture philosophy and the Confucianism and the Chinese culture? The second one is about the export of values and the philosophy 'cause World War II, after that, I think the United States been very actively involved in the development in Korea, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. For example, baseball was bought by Americans to South Korea and Japan. So basically, under the surface of substance material the U. S. is also exporting values philosophies to those East Asian countries. So if you watch the news from now on the administration of President Xi to One Belt, One Road, we have actually have really ramping up our effort to export the Chinese philosophy, Chinese values to a lot of countries all over the world, for example, South America, and Africa. So-- - [Perry] Okay I think we've got the idea. - So what's the implications of that? - [Perry] All right, thank you very much. - Thank you. - [Perry] And then over here, this lady on the edge there. (mumbling off mic) - [Woman] Okay. - [Chui] Thank you, panelists. I'm Chui Yen from Harvard Kennedy School. Yesterday also attended the Belfer centers lunch. Thank you Professor Hahm. So my question is to both Professor Hahm and Professor Sandel. In Professor Sandel's speech, I remember you mentioned the default setting in the context of a rising China's GDP and economic growth. And to me, I feel that nationalism and Confucianism is competing with each other, are competing with each other in China. But from Professor Hahm speech, I feel a sense of that, Confucianism is a prey for nationalism, and I do agree with that personally, because, at least for the region, I mean, at least in North Asia, it is really a danger, if naturalism is on the rise. Because, China, Japan, Korea will have very complicated history. So I wonder if Professor Hahm would elaborate on this. And I was also want to hear response from a professor Sandel. Thank you. - Professor Mansbridge down here. Can we have a microphone? - Thanks very much. I addressed this to Michael and to the other panelists. I've worried a bit about the use of the word liberalism here because liberalism has many facets. And it has GDP ism is as openness to new ideas. I wonder if we might want to disaggregate liberalism a bit and I appreciate the comments of the panelists. - [Elizabeth] Thank you. Yes, here in the middle. Put your hand up please. - Hi, doctors Sandel and other panelists? I'm Wuchang Nu from Boston University School of Public Health. I want to ask what's the implication for China, like the authoritarian regime, what's the implication of Confucianism today? Because I'm from Taiwan actually, we have the strong anxiety from China. I believe everybody may be can I understand, but especially for Taiwan or some countries in East Asia, other in China. So what's the implication for our Confucianist? Thank you. - [Elizabeth] So we'll take just a couple more and then turn back to our panelists and have another round. We'll take those two right there. Thank you. I'm Mahajan, I'm visiting scholar Fairbanks Center. My question is for Professor Sandel. I heard at least two professor here. Talk about combine that converted Confucian with Marxism. I want to here you are response, how to combine this to kind of philosopher, Marxism and the Confucianism. Thank you. - [Elizabeth] And give mic next to you there, and then we'll go back to the panelists. - Halo, I'm Jam from Kennedy School and my question is for Professor Sandel, In China and wondering how to balance the social impact and profit for the business. Some business or company just like this to the Chinese special context. Thank you. - [Elizabeth] Great, thank you. Michael, would you like to take a crack at some of these? - Okay, so some of them have overlapping themes. What's the motivation to engage in comparative philosophy? What's the relation between Nationalism and Confucianism, are they competing or are they mutually reinforcing? Can we disaggregate what we mean by liberalism? Is it GDP ism openness to new ideas or something else? Related is the question what's the implication of Confucianism for China today, which is related in turn to this last question about the relation between Confucianism and Marxism? Well, there are these two overlap a lot, really. And I think the first as for motivation, I think that comparative philosophy. Joseph made this point in his talk. Comparative philosophy should not mainly be in my view, the comparative history of ideas. There is a place for that and scholars can do useful work in there. But that's not really what's most interesting at least to me. What's most, for me what motivates an attempt to engage in comparative philosophy is the aspiration for mutual learning? And to do that it's necessary for the interlocutors to take the ideas seriously not just as episodes in the history of ideas. And to take them seriously means, to question and challenge and reason and argue about how to interpret the respective philosophical texts. Now, this element of argument and interpretation is also partly a response to the earlier disagreement or difference of emphasis that came from the panel discussion. about whether Confucianism today in China is dangerous cover for traditional authoritarian practices or whether it holds the promise of providing a moral foundation that can fill a vacuum of meaning. That's a big unanswered question that has come up here and we've not fully resolved. I suppose qualify my hopeful answer by saying the implication of Confucianism for China today depends and what it depends on is whether it's just taken off the shelf so to speak, as a political tool or an ideological instrument, in which case, I would have the same fears that Chaibong articulated. That's all it is. But if instead it's considered the attention to the Confucian tradition is understood as an attempt Initially by scholars as it would have to be, but ultimately for a wider public. To engage with an interpretive project, competing interpretations, including to take the one example that I think is very important that came up earlier. The role of women. One of the very interesting essays in the book by Robin Wang, a Confucian scholar who's interested in feminist theory, she offered a kind of interpret reinterpretation of the Confucian tradition that is more hospitable to feminism, then is commonly support. That's the kind of now, others may disagree with that reading. But it's the starting point for an argument for a debate about how to interpret a tradition and if that interpretive project can get going, then I I think the Confucian tradition can be potentially an important moral resource for public philosophy. But not if it's just the off the shelf ideological tool, variety and maybe that's the greater risk may well be. But then solution to that, the response to that is alright, let's jettison the the tradition. I think that's too quick. I think the response is, well, that's the wrong way to go about it. We have to provide an alternative, a constructive contestable, interpretive project that can attend to this very important moral tradition. But with arguments with disagreements with competing interpretations. - [Elizabeth] Professor Chan. - Yes, I'd like to big up Michaels whispering response to this various question as reffered to Chaibong's comment. First of all, let me say I was totally struck by what you said. That now you are not a Confucian. Because I have not seen you for some time now I realize. - [Chaibong] That's why. (laughs) - people have change. No, I don't think, I don't know, I think the world that you have serve has changed. And I can perfectly understand where you come from because in Taiwan people are reacting against Chinese culture, including Confucianism simply because they come from Mainland China. In Hong Kong, we are following the steps of Taiwan. Now this overbearing hegemony of Beijing, looms so large in our minds that we feel we have to resist everything that is somehow somewhat related to this thing called China. but of course there are other people in mainland China, who again see wrongly or correctly, the association between the rise of China and the call of Confucianism, then they have taken the right of the rise of China to think that yes, China is so big and so powerful now because we are Confusing country. So let's talk about Confucianism. And let's reject completely all these foreign ideological apparatus and framework. Let's just have total self confidence is our own indigenous culture. I think there is an extremely dangerous move. But go back to Chaibong's concerned. Let's say we destroy Confucianism. Let's say we also either destroy China or turn China into just another liberal democratic country. Then we asked this question, what can China contribute? What can it embolden China, powerful China contribute to the project of modernity? It is just another affluent capitalist, liberal democratic country, that with all the ills and stroke drawbacks that we've seen in the West. My conclusion is that we want China to become a much better country, and also to contribute to the whole thing called modernity by experimenting on something, which is not what we have seen in the West, but realizing that in his own culture, there are all kinds of bad practices that we want to strip off, combining things that make China or other great civilizations a source of insight or new additions to the ideas of modernity. So in that sense, we can talk about Christianity or other traditional religion, but in China, it happens that Confucianism, or bit of Taoism, and Buddhism are still these traditional sources of moral imagination, so to speak that was to tap on, and to build a better country for not just the Chinese people, but for mankind. - [Elizabeth] Yes, Professor Inoue. - Someone asked the question why Confucian is now? And I think there are two answers. And, well, I don't think these answers will reflect the real motivations of the publisher of this book, but one is about the concerned about the political context of content by China. As you know, communist government of which even though they are official upholding the amount of greed, actually the abundant it. The reality of the China is kind of a state to govern capitalism a little bit as well. Well, very, savage kind of capitalism, in my view, I'm sorry. So, this discussing Confucianism is safer for Confucians, Chinese scholars, then discussing Marxism. If you take the max in series, then you have to deny the dismissal of the equivalent Chinese regime. This is one cynical reason. Another more simple physical reason this I said earlier that advocates of the Confucianism in this book. I said in another dismissive way that their consumption of computers with the poor or something like that. But there is a little bit understandable law element in the endeavor. Even those people who emphasize the importance of the values of harmony or the primacy of social roles. Even those people are the very important providers like this kind of harmony is not unitary or repressive. Well, social division is not fixed one. It's open to diversity and fluid accommodation or something like that. So, as for Chinese scholars, the politically effective way to give some critical age to their argument is to reinterpret Confucian philosophy not in a radical way, but in a moderate way, but still has some critical implication conclusions. So let me revise my little bit harsh comment on that. - Sure, I think they're all all the questions are related in very interesting ways. Let me just start with the nationalism Confucianism. As I mentioned earlier, you will find only nationalist thinkers in China, Korea and and maybe in Japan too. Who call for the discarding of Confucianism for nationalist purpose. So there's no natural linkage between nationalism and Confucian as they said, Confucianism is the universalizing philosophical system so it doesn't matter you can be a Korean or Chinese or Japanese or American, if you want and you can still be a Confucian, but nationalism is something very different. And so what is interesting, of course, is when nationalism starts to appropriate Confucianism for its own purposes. That's where things become very dicey and dangerous. And that's what I wanted to point out. And the second comment relates to both the question about dis aggregating liberalism and concept of liberalism. And but I think the way in which at least I'm using the term is really about individual freedom, in that sense. Also about market but I think it's connected in that way. But let's focus on individual freedom. And I think if you contrast the liberalism, that kind of liberalism and Confucianism, the way I would put that is I would put it, described the differences is to, In liberalism, we err on the side of individual freedom. That is we say that for instance, if it's individual versus community or something. We first try to emphasize, it could be wrong, it could go wrong, it could be excessive, but we give the pride of place to the individual. In Confucianism, I think, the way I viewed is you give the person in position of authority, the benefit of the doubt. That you somehow say that okay, if that person is a teacher, or senior person, somebody higher up in the bureaucracy, whatever you think that that person had gotten there for whatever, better, some good reason, and that you defer to that person. And so the first instinct of the Traditional Confucian societies, you, you err on the side of authority, right? And so I think that's where differences where what's the connection? What's the implication of Confucianism for authoritarianism? And I think that's the propensity that has always been the dominant propensity of Confucianism, to err on the side of authority, right? That somehow authority is deserved that you give the benefit of doubt and give them a chance first to try things out. And I think that's the the danger of Confucianism. - [Elizabeth] Professor Qu do you wish to make any comments? - I think you can give them for more questions. - Okay, so we'll turn off them for one more round here. And let me choose you in the front here. Right here. - I think you very much having Sherry from law school. And so my question is about, can you tell us about more about the relationship between moral control and the role of law? Because the discussion today, let me think about the Confucianism and Legalism. So, like in the case, Professor Sandel mentioned the price control. So what's the relationship between moral and the role of law? Thanks. - [Elizabeth] Yes, gentleman. (mumbles) - Hi, I am Marson Massoud, I'm a Knight Fellow at MIT. We've heard a lot about Confucianism in the sort of East Asian context. But I'm just wondering perhaps from Professor Perry and Sandel picture a little bit about the adoption or otherwise of ideas, debates around Confucius within the western philosophical tradition today or perhaps within the educational tradition. - Yes pass that mic over there. - Elton Chen from Dellen, US College. I have a question for Professor Sandel. In the book, you mentioned that you sort of see that now there's some civic virtue might also be moral virtues for people to be good people and not just good citizens. The Confucian case, however, is that other way around, that they want people to be good human beings and therefore from them, they become like good citizens. So you do talk about one side of the case, I wonder what your opinion is on the other side of the case? Thank you. - We have the mic that can go. Where's the other microphone? Yeah, to the left there and then to the right. - Hi, I'm Jane Chew. I'm a Knight Fellow at MIT. So I might my, the point I would like to raise is related to what Professor Perry was saying earlier on about how to feel the vacuum of of morality in China. So, the Chinese government is leading this very strong campaign to push Confucianism not just within China, but beyond the border, internationally as well. So I just wonder, what are the implications or concerns about this, this kind of top down led initiative to push one ideology, philosophy or religion, if you call it, people tend to think Confucius in different shades of thinking. And because I guess we already aware of the kind of a lack of religious freedom, for instance, in China. So I just wonder, whether this kind of initiative would exacerbate the situation? Thank you. - [Elizabeth] Young man over there. - Hi, I'm Zach from the Law School and my question is directed to Professor Sandel and in your conversation with Joseph, when you're discussing about institutions such as the open space to cultivate civic virtue. But my question is, are confronting this certain technological architectures such as Facebook and Twitter, as we witness and law school professors like Stan Stan Lessig also mentioned about how they can influence the deliberation process and how civic virtue is founded. Do you think that both republicanism and liberalism are both under the same attack and also how Confucianism like in the institutions in China and the technical architecture, how the design it can resist this kind of technical change? - [Elizabeth] Thanks. So we'll take just two more questions or just kept right there in the middle. - Hello, my name's Dave from Boston University, study comparative religion also about Confucianism. A question be like right now in China, there are a lot of like ministry about Confucianism and also about relationship between business and also Confucianism, like Frixion, like Changjiang, Business School actually have a lot of people teaching Confucianism and more like for people who are doing business more like a shared value about Confucianism and also thinking about the ministry compare with in our Christianity as churches. And so like I've been to India, so India trip, India has a lot of temples too like Buddhism, has a lot temples too, but it Confucianism them right now actually, in terms of ministry will kind of no policy should be better applied. - Okay thank you. And now final, Is there a final question? Right in the middle there. - Hello, Juan Ru from the Harogenty Institute. I got a question for Professor Hahm. My question is that you said you stop being a Confucianist. So my question is that, well, you stop being a Confucianist, but can you adopt totally abandon the Confucian and the Confucian traditions? For example, would you allow your son to call your first name? (audience laughing) So my question is really that sometimes it kind of easy to abandon the official ideology. And but, can we totally abandon the part of the culture that is essentially a part of our tradition? Okay. - Thank you. - These were terrific questions, and I know there'll be many more but you'll have an opportunity after we formally close this session to talk to the panelists out there in the lobby during the book signing. So let me turn back again first to the other panelists, and then I'll give Michael the final word here. So those of the other panelists who would like to make responses? - Oh yes I will, I will have to. (laughs) - Thank you for the question. I think your question really gets to the heart of the issue. Speaking as a Korean. We're very in Confucian. There's no escaping it. (Elizabeth laughs) So our language is completely well, it's best fit for Confucian. I always wonder whether Korean language was the one that we use today as created by Confucians. (laughs) or it just happened to fit Confucian because it's incredibly hierarchical. Some of you know we, we have 13 different ways to say please eat. (audience laughs) Depending on the term you use for the king and to tweet to your slave, right? And you have to be a perfect master of that language when you when you talk to your classmates, when your senior to your senior, your teacher. It's a very complicated language that that constantly re-invests the sense of authority relations, but family relations... So what I'm saying is that it's not that we can ever escape this, at least not in my lifetime. My generations it would seem. But then the question of whether you would then advocate Confucianism, that's something, So you could be for a Korean woman to be criticizing Confucianism. That's perfectly fine she's a Confucian she's probably more vision than most anybody in certain ways. But then it actually she she will be a severe critic. And of not just in terms of theory, but of course, the institutions that she thinks derived from Confucianism ended she feels is very oppressive for her gender. So it never a matter of abandoning nutrition. It's just how you how you deal with that, that tradition. There's some ways of firming it and some whereas ways of rejecting it. It's just, again, trying to read, be able to read or have your own position, have your own view judgment as to which position was required at certain juncture in your country's history or your societies evolution? And I think that's really again, as I said at the beginning, and in really incredibly interesting challenge put forth to any intellectual. Do you adapt to changing times? Do you adapt your philosophy to changing times? Do you sometimes abandon philosophies and embrace others? I think was a clearly Strauss who said, "Brickle or in the intellectual is like that recolor is like, tour handyman" you use your call to do all kinds of jobs and now, you do normally think that philosophers are intellectual, somebody who has this grand centered universal vision and you just hang on to it, or articulate it, but in certain ways I find myself increasingly becoming a bricklayer and trying to figure out my place in history, where exactly I fit in? Whether this means I embrace or reject or Confucianism or other things. - [Elizabeth] Thank you, other panelists? - May I say if Sandel has something to say. - [Elizabeth] He'll have the last, he'll have the last word. - About The last question mentioned the important distinction between the official ideology and way of living. I'm sure way of living? I think this is an important discussion. But as far as the way of living is concerned, it cannot be reduced to certain specific form of religion. Average people, general public, most of them don't read any classical text of Confucius or something like that. They just received the well traditional way of life and also they adjust and change these bombs. For example, in even Christianity, countries with Christian traditions. Do you think that the Christmas tree can be traced to the Christian well religious, thought? It has nothing to do with that. It says a German folk tradition which Christians Christian missions incorporated. And there's a lot of examples. For example, we Japanese will celebrate the birth of a newborn babies in a Shinto style, and also wedding ceremony in a Shinto style, but as well as people died, we will conduct our funeral in a Buddhist style. So it's a kind of a religious synchronism, the people will, just not passing. They are well adaptively well, deeper off their way of life, well, absorbing some part of this region, and the other part of other like that. So I don't think if you were really interested in the way people live, then I think you should abandon the some religion has a dominant influence on the way people live. - Thank you. Professor Chan, Professor Qu, no, neither of you okay. In that case, we will turn back to Professor Sandel for his concluding thoughts. - On the relation between civic virtue and moral virtue, I think it goes both ways. I think to be a good citizen, culture can cultivate qualities of character that are important to living a good life. I also agree with Aristotle, that to live a good life, it's not enough simply to display private virtues or virtues related to one's immediate family. But it's also necessary to engage with the world to deliberate with fellow citizens about the collective destiny that element of sharing of participating in self rule develops qualities of character and judgment and concern that we can't fully realize, in private life or even family life alone. Now, holding those two views, they gets me in trouble sometimes with my liberal friends, and in a few cases also with Confucian scholars who questioned that view of the relation between the two. I would just like to conclude. May I read just a few sentences to conclude. It's about the project of mutual learning. And it goes back to the question what motivates all this? And it's also well, why do this and what can we learn not only by doing comparative philosophy but for that matter by being curious and traveling? Any project of mutual learning between Chinese and Western philosophy should begin by acknowledging a certain asymmetry. Our friend and former colleague Tu Ming once observed that China is a learning civilization, whereas the West is a teaching civilization. He didn't mean this as a compliment, to the west. (audience laughs) I think he was suggesting, that societies that see themselves as delivering instruction to the rest of the world fall into a certain hubris. They're teaching devolves into preaching. Beyond generating resentment as civilization bent on teaching and preaching, loses its capacity to encounter the world to listen and to learn from it. That's really the spirit that animates this project as far as I'm concerned. And so I really just wanna close by saying, that I'm so grateful to my colleague, Liz Perry and to the panelists. Not only for, in the case of the panelists traveling a great distance to be part of this discussion, but also for what I take to be the gift, and it is a gift up there critical engagement. Thank you very much. (audience claps) - Thank you all so much. I would like to thank Professor Sandel for this wonderful presentation and Professor Chan, Professor Qu, Professor Hahm, professor Inoue and all of you and again to thank the co-sponsoring institutions, the Asia Center, the Fairbanks Center, the Korea Institute, the Safra center, and especially the staff of the Harvard Engineering Institute and Lindsay Strogatz, who did all the hard work. Thank you very, very much. (claps)

Channel: yenchinginstitute

Views: 27,956

Rating: 4.9155674 out of 5

Keywords: michael sandel, joseph chan, hahm chaibong, inoue tatsuo, qu hongmei, elizabeth perry, chinese philosophy, political thought

Id: rBAp_D4tUvc

Length: 127min 10sec (7630 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 21 2018