View source for New Confucianism

{{Short description|20th–21st century Confucianist revival movement}}
{{About|the 20th century movement|the Song and Ming dynasty schools|Neo-Confucianism|Han dynasty group |Current Texts Confucianism}}
{{Use Oxford spelling|date=March 2020}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}

{{Confucianism}}

'''New Confucianism''' ({{zh|s=新儒家|t=新儒家|p=Xīn Rújiā|l=New Confucianism}}) is an [[intellectual]] movement of [[Confucianism]] that began in the early 20th century in [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republican China]], and further developed in post-[[Mao era]] [[People's Republic of China|contemporary China]]. It primarily developed during the [[May Fourth Movement]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Solé-Farràs|first=Jesús|title=Harmony in Contemporary New Confucianism and in Socialism with Chinese Characteristics|journal=China Media Research|pages=3}}</ref> It is deeply influenced by, but not identical to, the [[neo-Confucianism]] of the [[Song dynasty|Song]] and [[Ming dynasty|Ming]] dynasties.<ref name="Makeham"/>

It is a [[New Conservatism (China)|neo-conservative]] movement of various Chinese traditions and has been regarded as containing religious overtones; it advocates for certain Confucianist elements of society&nbsp;– such as social, ecological, and political harmony<ref name=":0" />&nbsp;– to be applied in a contemporary context in synthesis with Western philosophies such as [[rationalism]] and [[humanism]].<ref name="Makeham">{{cite book | editor-last = Makeham |editor-first = John |title = New Confucianism: A Critical Examination |publisher =Palgrave |year = 2003 |location= New York|isbn = 978-1-4039-6140-2}}</ref> Its philosophies have emerged as a focal point of discussion between Confucian scholars in [[mainland China]], [[Taiwan]], [[Hong Kong]], and the [[United States]].

== History ==
{{New Culture Movement|expanded=Schools}}

The first generation of new Confucians (1921–1949) came about as a response to the [[May Fourth movement]] and its iconoclastic stance against [[Confucianism]]. Confucianism was attacked as unscientific and contrary to the progress of a modern China. One notable figure during this time was [[Xiong Shili]], who studied Buddhism in depth in his youth but later sought a reformation of the Confucian philosophical framework.{{cn|date=April 2025}} 

Borrowing from the school of [[Wang Yangming]], Xiong developed a [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] system for the new Confucian movement and believed Chinese learning was superior to [[Western learning]]. Another figure, [[Feng Youlan]], following the neo-Confucian school of [[Zhu Xi]], sought a revival of Chinese philosophy as challenged and influenced by the questions and techniques of modern Western philosophy.{{cn|date=April 2025}}

After the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, many of the leading intellectuals left the mainland to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States. Notable figures of this second-generation (1950–1979) include individuals like [[Tang Junyi]], [[Mou Zongsan]], and [[Xu Fuguan]]; all three are students of [[Xiong Shili]]. Mou, in particular, was grounded in classic Chinese philosophical traditions and argued that [[Immanuel Kant]] was, in many ways, a Western Confucius. These three worked with the [[Qian Mu]] to found [[New Asia College]] in Hong Kong. One of New Asia's most prominent graduates was [[Yu Yingshi]]. Together with [[Zhang Junmai]], in 1958 they issued the [[A Manifesto for a Re-appraisal of Sinology and Reconstruction of Chinese Culture|New Confucian Manifesto]] consolidating their beliefs and drawing attention to their philosophical movement.{{cn|date=April 2025}}

In the early 21st century, the most prominent representatives of the new Confucian movement outside of China have been the students of [[Mou Zongsan]]. One of the most prominent, [[Tu Wei-ming]], promoted the idea that Confucianism saw three epochs: the classical pre-[[Han dynasty|Han]] Confucianism, [[Song Dynasty|Song]]-[[Ming Dynasty|Ming]] neo-Confucianism, and new Confucianism. This third generation has been instrumental in grounding Confucianism in non-Asian contexts, such as [[Boston Confucianism]] and Western scholars such as [[Wm. Theodore de Bary]].<ref name="Bersciani">{{cite book |last = Bresciani |first = Umberto |title = Reinventing Confucianism: The New Confucian Movement |publisher = Taipei Ricci Institute |year = 2001 |location= Taipei|isbn = 978-957-9390-07-1}}</ref>

=== Mainland New Confucianism ===
{{Conservatism in China|Ideologies}}
Following the period of [[reform and opening-up]] under [[Deng Xiaoping]] after 1978, Confucian thought experienced a revival in mainland China. An emerging current of "Mainland New Confucians", led initially by [[Jiang Qing (Confucian)|Jiang Qing]], sharply demarcated themselves from the "Overseas New Confucianism" developed by Mou and others. Unlike the reformist views of Overseas New Confucian intellectuals, Mainland New Confucians viewed Confucianism as a national religion supported by doctrinal, political, and spiritual systems.<ref name=":02" />{{Rp|page=175}} According to Jiang, Confucian thought can be divided into two currents, "Mind Confucianism" and "Political Confucianism".<ref>{{cite book|last=Fan|first=Ruiping|editor-last=Fan|editor-first=Ruiping|title=The Renaissance of Confucianism in Contemporary China|year=2011|chapter=The Rise of Political Confucianism in Contemporary China|url=https://archive.org/details/renaissanceo_xxxx_2011_000_10757440|url-access=registration|place=Dordrecht|publisher=Springer|pages=[https://archive.org/details/renaissanceo_xxxx_2011_000_10757440/page/n47 36]–38}}</ref>

Confucianism, he posits, has for over a millennium been confined to Mind Confucianism at the expense of Political Confucianism, leaving the true thought of Confucius "mutilated". Jiang argues for the restoration of [[political legitimacy]] as a core focus of Confucian thought, for renewed attention to Confucian constitutional structures, and for the establishment of Confucianism as an official [[state religion]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Fan|first=Ruiping|editor-last=Fan|editor-first=Ruiping|title=The Renaissance of Confucianism in Contemporary China|year=2011|chapter=The Rise of Political Confucianism in Contemporary China|url=https://archive.org/details/renaissanceo_xxxx_2011_000_10757440|url-access=registration|place=Dordrecht|publisher=Springer|pages=[https://archive.org/details/renaissanceo_xxxx_2011_000_10757440/page/n47 36]–38}}</ref>

Other Mainland New Confucians debated a more [[liberalism in China|liberal]] political attitude to Confucianism. [[Chen Ming]], an academic at the Institute for World Religions in Beijing, took a leading role.{{sfnb|Makeham|2008|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=3_cFEAAAQBAJ&q=chen%20ming%20 Chapter 9]}} Chen wrote that Confucianism faced the task of providing solutions to three major problems of contemporary Chinese society: political reconstruction, cultural identity, and religious faith.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Ming |title=Modernity and Confucian Political Philosophy in a Globalizing World |journal=Diogenes |date=2009 |volume=56 |page=94 |doi=10.1177/0392192109102159 |citeseerx=10.1.1.944.4487 |s2cid=220786168 }}</ref> While agreeing with Jiang's rejection of the metaphysical emphasis of "Overseas New Confucianism", Chen argues that Confucianism is best seen as a [[civil religion]] on American lines, compatible with democracy, and that political life can express a religious aspect without a formal state religion.<ref name="BillioudThoraval"/>

Chen distanced himself from several rivals: Mou Zongsan's Confucianism as the "perfect teaching" seemed too informed by emotion; Jiang Qing's notion that China should be a Confucian state that unified the political and religious was too simplistic; [[Kang Xiaoguang]]'s program to transform Confucianism into a state religion was "hardly applicable".<ref name="BillioudThoraval">{{cite journal|last1=Billioud|first1=Sébastien|last2=Thoraval|first2=Joël|title=The Contemporary Revival of Confucianism: ''Anshen liming'' or the Religious Dimension of Confucianism|journal=China Perspectives|number=3|year=2008|page=104|issn=1996-4617}}</ref><ref> For Kang's program see {{citation|first=David |last=Ownby |title= Kang Xiaoguang: Social Science, Civil Society, and Confucian Religion |journal= China Perspectives |date=April 2009 |volume=2009 |issue=4 |url=http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/4928 |doi=10.4000/chinaperspectives.4928|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Factors influencing the Confucian revival since the early 1990s include the tendency of Chinese intellectuals to oppose the iconoclasm of the May Fourth legacy, an increase in "national learning", and an increasingly anti-Western national mood.<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Tu |first=Hang |title=Sentimental Republic: Chinese Intellectuals and the Maoist Past |publisher=[[Harvard University Asia Center]] |year=2025 |isbn=9780674297579}}</ref>{{Rp|page=175}}

== Terminology ==
Whereas the English rendering of the movement is generally ''new Confucianism'', there is a variety of translations in the Chinese. Many Taiwan-based writers will tend to use the term ''contemporary new Confucianism'' ({{zh|s=当代新儒家|t=當代新儒家|p=dāng dài xīn rú jiā}} or {{zh|s=当代新儒学|t=當代新儒學|p=dāng dài xīn rú xué}}) to emphasize the movement's continuity with the [[Song Dynasty|Song]]-[[Ming Dynasty|Ming]] [[neo-Confucianism]].<ref name="Makeham"/>

Many within Mainland China prefer the term ''modern new Confucianism'' ({{zh|s=现代新儒家|t=現代新儒家|p= xiàn dài xīn rú jiā}} or {{zh|s=现代新儒学|t=現代新儒學|p= xiàn dài xīn rú xué}}) with an emphasis on the period of modernization after [[May Fourth movement|May Fourth]].<ref name="Makeham"/>

== Philosophy ==
New Confucianism is a school of Chinese philosophy influenced by [[Confucianism]]. After the events of the [[May Fourth Movement]] in 1919, in which Confucianism was blamed for China’s weakness and decline in the face of Western aggression, a major Chinese philosopher of the time, [[Xiong Shili]] (1885–1968), established and re-constructed Confucianism as a response.<ref name=Yu>{{cite book|last=Yu|first=Jiyuan|title=Contemporary Chinese Philosophy|year=2002|publisher=Blackwell|location= Oxford|isbn=0631217258|pages=127–146}}</ref> 

New Confucianism is a political, ethical, and social philosophy using metaphysical ideas from both Western and Eastern philosophy. It is categorized into three generations, starting with [[Xiong Shili]] and [[Feng Youlan]] as the first generation philosophers who set the basis. The second generation consists of Xiong's students, [[Mou Zongsan]], [[Tang Junyi]], and [[Xu Fuguan]]. The third generation is not determined via figures unlike previous generations, but new Confucianism from 1980. Xiong and his follower's attempts to reconstruct Confucianism gave new Confucianism its Chinese name, xīn rú jiā.

=== First Generation ===

====Xiong Shili ====

{{Main|Xiong Shili}}

Xiong Shili (1885–1968) is widely regarded as the thinker who laid down the basis for the revival of Confucianism as new Confucianism in the twentieth century.<ref name=Yu/> Much of the basis of new Confucianism comes from Xiong's New Doctrine. Proficient in Buddhist classics,<ref name=Yu/> Xiong argued that classics of Eastern Philosophy must be integrated in contemporary Chinese philosophy for more solidity.<ref name=Yu/> Xiong recognized Buddhism's dark view of human nature, but also recognized that there are brighter sides to human nature. For this reason, he rejected the Buddhist learning of "daily decrease" which dictated that the practice to suppress one's dark nature was necessary.<ref name=Yu/> 

He arrived at such conclusion after his examination of Classic Confucianism. While Confucianism also examines the negative aspect of human nature, thus the necessity to habituate oneself with ritual, the purpose of the practice of ritual and attainment of ''ren'' is not focused on restricting the darker aspects of human nature but developing the "fundamental goodness", i.e., the ''duan'' of human beings that [[Mencius]] writes of.

In order to incorporate Buddhism with Confucianism as a part of his contemporary Chinese philosophy encompassing various Eastern philosophies, Xiong proposed a correction of Buddhist learning of daily decrease. Xiong understood the basis behind "daily decrease" to be Buddhism's metaphysical belief of the "unbridgeable split between an absolute unchanging reality (Dharma-nature or fa-xing), and a constantly changing and conditional phenomenal world (Dharma-characters or fa-xing) (Xiong, 1994, pp. 69–77, 84–5, 111–12).<ref name=Yu/> 

[[Jiyuan Yu]], in his examination of Xiong, describes this as the "Separation theory". Meanwhile, Xiong's theory behind correcting the "daily decrease" rested heavily upon what Yu describes as the "Sameness Thesis".<ref name=Yu/> Xiong, in his New Doctrine, calls this Dharma-nature ''ti'' and Dharma-characters ''yong''. Xiong argues that unlike how Buddhism perceives these two worlds, these two worlds are a unity. Xiong's reasoning is shown in his 1985 version of New Doctrine:

{{blockquote|If they are separable, function will differ from original reality and exist independently, and in that way function will have its own original reality. We should not seek for some entity outside function and name it original reality. Furthermore, if original reality exists independent of function, it is a useless reality. In that case, if it is not a dead thing, it must be a dispensable thing. Thinking back and forth, I believe that original reality and function are not separable. (Xiong, 1985, p.&nbsp;434)}}

His view on this unity can be seen in his earlier works such as New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness. In New Treatise, he argues that the Reality is equal to the Mind. This Mind does not refer to one's individual mind but the universal presence in which there is a universality of mind amongst all beings, thus being the reality. Xiong incorporates the Confucian and Buddhist concept of self-mastery of one's desires, by arguing that failing to control one's desires and individual mind, one will be "a heap of dead matter". Xiong's view is that one should perceive objects of the world internally, since what is external is ultimately also internal and that they are one as both Mind and Reality.

=== Second Generation ===

==== Mou Zongsan ====

{{Main|Mou Zongsan}}

Mou Zongsan is considered to be one of the more influential second generation philosophers. Mou's general philosophy on metaphysics stays in line with Xiong's. He embellishes upon Xiong's theories on Mind and Reality to apply it to a more socio-political aspect. Mou claims universality exists in all philosophical truth. Which suggests that political and social theories of the world can be connected in essence. Mou argues in his lectures that particularity exists because of the different systems that are established in different cultures. 

These different systems, after a series of philosophical reasoning and interpretation, arrive at a same philosophical truth. He believes that our physical limitations, i.e., our physical being, create these different systems and different cultures. Being that our mind, i.e., form, is still manifested and exists within this physical world, we should not let these limitations prevent us from practicing philosophical reasoning.

Mou's political philosophy is more clearly showed as he discusses the historical necessity that follows the particularity of human beings. Different nations and different systems' existence can be explained mainly because of this historical necessity. Mou asserts that historical necessity exists neither because of [[logical truth|logical necessity]] or metaphysical necessity but because of what he calls a development of the spirit, what he labels as dialectical necessity. 

He claims that history should be perceived and interpreted as something that has both historical necessity i.e., also dialectical necessity, and moral necessity. For there are two types of judgment: moral and historical. Mou states, that Greek or Chinese, these basic necessities behind history and fundamental human character are the same, and therefore universality in philosophical truth exists even behind politics and history.

== New Confucian Manifesto ==
{{Main|A Manifesto for a Re-appraisal of Sinology and Reconstruction of Chinese Culture}}

The term itself was first used as early as 1963, in two articles in the [[Hong Kong]] journal ''Rensheng''. It did not come into common use until the late 1970s. New Confucianism is often associated with the essay, "A Manifesto on Chinese Culture to the World," which was published in 1958 by [[Tang Junyi]], [[Mou Zongsan]], [[Xu Fuguan]] and [[Zhang Junmai]]. This work is often referred to as the "New Confucian Manifesto", although that phrase never occurs in it.<ref name="Bersciani"/>

The Manifesto presents a vision of Chinese culture as having a fundamental unity throughout history, of which Confucianism is the highest expression. The particular interpretation of Confucianism given by the Manifesto is deeply influenced by neo-Confucianism, and in particular the version of neo-Confucianism most associated with [[Lu Jiuyuan|Lu Xiangshan]] and [[Wang Yangming]], as opposed to that associated with [[Zhu Xi]]. The Manifesto argues that while China must learn from the West modern science and democracy, the West must learn from China, and the Confucian tradition in particular, "a more all-encompassing wisdom."<ref name="Bersciani"/>

== Harmonious Society ==
{{Main|Harmonious Society}}
The concept of a ''harmonious society'' ({{zh|s=和谐社会|t=和諧社會|p=héxié shèhuì}}) dates back to the time of Confucius. As a result, the philosophy has been characterized as deriving from new Confucianism.<ref>{{cite book|author=Guo And Guo|title=China in Search of a Harmonious Society|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bcRqAAAAQBAJ|date=15 August 2008|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-0-7391-3042-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Ruiping Fan|title=Reconstructionist Confucianism: Rethinking Morality after the West|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GXb7xA1VoMMC|date=11 March 2010|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-90-481-3156-3}}</ref><ref>Daniel A. Bell, [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/opinion/14iht-edbell.2807200.html?_r=0 China's Leaders Rediscover Confucianism]" ''The New York Times'', 14 September 2006.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2014/11/171_94973.html|title=Confucian concept of harmonious society|date=18 September 2011|website=[[The Korea Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.academia.edu/5282393|title=Modern Confucianism and the Concept of Harmony|first=Jana|last=Rosker|website=academia.edu}}</ref><ref>Arnold, Perris. “Music as Propaganda: Art at the Command of Doctrine in the People's Republic of China”. Ethnomusicology 27, no. 1 (1983): 1–28.</ref> In modern times, it developed into a key feature of former [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of China|Communist Party general secretary]] [[Hu Jintao]]'s signature ideology of the [[Scientific Development Concept]], developed in the mid-2000s, re-introduced by the [[Hu–Wen Administration]] during the 2005 [[National People's Congress]].

The philosophy is recognized as a response to the increasing social injustice and inequality emerging in mainland Chinese society as a result of unchecked economic growth, which has led to social conflict. The governing philosophy was therefore shifted around economic growth to overall societal balance and harmony.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101610.html |title=China's Party Leadership Declares New Priority: 'Harmonious Society' |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= 12 October 2006|access-date=20 January 2011}}</ref> Along with a [[moderately prosperous society]], it was set to be one of the national goals for the ruling [[Communist Party of China|communist party]].

The promotion of "Harmonious Society" demonstrated that Hu Jintao's ruling philosophy had departed from that of his predecessors.<ref name=20061011atimes>Zhong, Wu. [https://web.archive.org/web/20061103063705/http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ11Ad01.html “China yearns for Hu's 'harmonious society'”]. ''Asia Times''. Last modified 11 October 2006.</ref> Near the end of his tenure in 2011, Hu appeared to extend the ideology to an international dimension, with a focus on the international peace and cooperation, which is said to lead to a "harmonious world". The administration of Hu's successor, [[Xi Jinping]], has used the philosophy more sparingly.

Some scholars, notably [[Yan Xuetong]] and [[Daniel A. Bell]], advocate the restoration of meritocratic Confucian institutions such as the [[censorate]] in China and elsewhere as part of a new Confucian political program. Others (e.g., [[Jana S. Rošker]]) emphasize that Confucianism is by no means a monolithic or static scope of traditional thought, but rather implies different currents that can be used quite arbitrarily and selectively by modern ideologies, which are marked by their function of legitimizing the state power. Considering the historical development of the concept of harmony we need to ask ourselves to what extent are the philosophical traditions based on historic assumptions, and to what extent are they merely a product of the ideological and political demands of the current period.

== See also ==
* [[Conservatism in China]]

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}

=== Sources ===
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last = Cheng |editor1-first = Chung-Ying |editor2-last = Bunnin |editor2-first = Nicholas |title = Contemporary Chinese Philosophy |publisher = Blackwell |year = 2002 |location=Malden, Massachusetts |isbn = 978-0-631-21725-1 }}
* {{cite book |last = Makeham |first = John |translator = |year = 2008 |title = Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse |publisher = Harvard University Asia Center for the Harvard-Yenching Institute; Distributed by Harvard University Press| location = Cambridge, Mass. |isbn = 9780674028111}}
* "Manifesto For A Reappraisal Of Sinology And The Reconstruction Of Chinese Culture", in {{cite book |last1=De Bary |first1 = Wm. Theodore |last2 = Lufrano |first2 =  Richard |title = Sources of Chinese Tradition |volume = 2 |year=2000 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-11271-0 |pages=550–555 }}
* Rošker, Jana S. (2016). The Rebirth of the Moral Self: the Second Generation of Modern Confucians and their Modernization Discourses. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, {{ISBN|978-962-996-688-1}}.
* Rošker, Jana S. “The Concept of Harmony in Contemporary P.&nbsp;R. China and in Taiwanese Modern Confucianism”. Asian studies, ISSN 2232-5131, vol. 1 (17), issue 2. https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/398
{{refend}}

==External links==
* {{SEP|confucianism-modern|Modern Confucianism|David Elstein}}

{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Chinese philosophy}}

[[Category:New Confucianism| ]]
[[Category:Chinese Confucianists|*]]
[[Category:Contemporary Chinese philosophy]]