Roundtable Discussion

FEATURES Roundtable Discussion Wm. Theodore de Bary. The Trouble with Confucianism Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991. xiv, 132 pp. $19.95. copyright1994 by University of Hawaïi Press Introduction by Irene Bloom Everyso often there appears in thefield ofAsian studies, and no doubt in otherfields as well, an exceptional book which serves tofocus ongoingdebate and discussion in new ways and invites scholars to see important issuesfrom afreshperspective. Such is the case with Wm. Theodore de Bary's book The Trouble with Confucianism, published in 1991 byHarvard UniversityPress and based on the TannerLectures on Human Values given by Professor de Bary at the University ofCalifornia atBerkeley in May of1988. A book with a very strong and distinctivelypersonal character, it is the kind ofwork whose concision couldperhaps only be accomplished by one who has spenta lifetime refininghis thoughts on so large and significant a subject. It is at the same time a remarkably open, engaging, and even luminous reflection on the role ofConfucianism in Chinese culture. The challengingquality ofthe book and its potential to stimulate both controversy and reflection seemed to recommend it as the subject ofa roundtable discussion at the annual meetingoftheAssociationforAsian Studies, which was held in March 1993 in LosAngeles. Participating in this discussion, in addition to Professor de Bary, were Chang Hao ofOhio State University, Frederic Wakeman ofthe University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, YiX Ying-shih ofPrinceton University, andAnthony C. Yu ofthe University ofChicago. Tu Wei-ming ofHarvard University had alsoplanned to bepart of thegroup but at the last minute was, to our regret, preventedfrom attending due to illness. At the suggestion ofRogerAmes, the discussion that tookplace on that afternoon in late March was recorded, with the idea ofpublishing it in this inaugural issue o/China Review International. Offered here are opening remarks by Professor de Bary, followed by the comments ofChang Hao, Frederic Wakeman, Yu Ying-shih, andAnthony C. Yu, with a concluding responsefrom Professor de Bary. For the mostpart, this text is based on a transcription ofthe audio recording, although both the speakers and Professor de Bary himselfhave had the opportunity to review and adapt their remarks to incorporate subsequent thoughts about the work and any responses to other members ofthe roundtablegroup. We have not io China Review International: Vol. ?, No. ?, Spring 1994 tried, however, to recast the discussion as a written exchange; it remains, like so many ofthosefamous exchanges within the Confucian tradition itself, very much a dialogue in which readers ofChina Review International are hereby invited tojoin. Wm. Theodore de Bary First let me express my appreciation for the rare privilege of discussing my work with such a distinguished panel of scholars, each ofwhom has a special competence that can be brought to bear on the subject. I feel doubly fortunate in that I had a similar opportunity recently to discuss my earlier Liberal Tradition in China, which highlighted some of the more positive features of Neo-Confucianism in the Sung and Ming periods but left open, and still waiting to be addressed, the question ofwhat had happened later to these supposedly "liberal" trends: how could they simply have lapsed, and left nineteenth- and twentieth-century viewers with only an impression of Confucianism as retrograde and reactionary? It was partly to catch up with this large, open question that I undertook to speak on "The Trouble with Confucianism" in my Tanner Lectures at Berkeley. To some extent the much darker modern view of Confucianism can be attributed to Western misconceptions, arising from the superficial culture-bound judgments of outsiders unable to appreciate the depth and complexity of a mature , many-layered tradition that did not readily yield to novices and parvenus its innermost secrets. Yet to leave the matter at that, with Confucianism seen as the innocent victim of a collision at the cultural crossroads, would be too simplistic. One must also take into account that Confucianism's seamier side had been exposed long before Westerners or newly"liberated" Chinese came on the scene, and by Confucians themselves in the premodern period, quite without the benefit or bane ofWestern influences. In this perspective I am glad to think of the present discussion as one in a series , another stage in a process of iteration, response...