Talk:Progressive Confucianism

This entry offers a clear introduction to Angle’s idea of Progressive Confucianism and how it casts new light on the discussions of “Rule of law”, “Human Rights” and “Gender and Sexuality’ in contemporary China. The writer of this entry did well in describing the active and organic characters of Progressive Confucianism by explaining its central term, “self-restriction”, in the historical discourses of Confucianism. In order to offer a more detailed and comprehensive description, the writer may want to elaborate more on the term “self-restriction” in Mou’s philosophy. What kind of role “self-restriction” plays in Mou’s philosophy? How this term connects to Mou’s moral metaphysics and his idea of “intellectual intuition”? Since the “self-restriction” presupposes a (“liberal” Confucian) education of individuals. The writer may want to describe more about the possibility and obstacles of Confucian education in contemporary China. What kind of problems -- cultural, historical or political – in contemporary China may prevents people from engaging in the “self-restriction”? How will Progressive Confucianists answer to these obstacles or go through adaptations to better integrate into contemporary educations?

Re: Hello! I am the establisher of Progressive Confucianism's Wikipedia page. Thank you a lot for your comment. You raised really good questions on "self-restriction" and Mou Zongsan's philosophy. Based on my interpretation, the most important message of "self-restriction" to Progressive Confucianism is that it limits an individual's moral sentiments to the rule of law. Angle reinterprets Mou's "self-restriction" and Progressive Confucianism focuses on the realm of political philosophy. I am not sure how well does Mou's metaphysics fit in with the rest of the entry. However, I do look forward to learning more about this subject matter and seeing how you, or any other person who knows Mou's philosophy well, would contribute Mou Zongsan's Wikipedia entry, or create a new page on "self-restriction." Meanwhile, I share your concerns on how Mou's New Confucianism or Progressive Confucianism can be implemented in contemporary Chinese society.

Clarity
Some parts are somewhat hard to follow, for instance this sentence: "The arguments that oppose liberalism in China do not adequately respond to a call for Progressive Confucianism." I also think this section could better articulate the difference between Progressive Confucianism and New Confucianism, or whether the former is a branch of the latter. I thought the Criticism section was very apt and well organized. The etymology in particular was of interest and I wonder if including the Chinese translation and variations on that would further complicate the phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicjguo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for your comments! I am glad that you like the criticism section of the entry. I just modified the origin section of the entry. I hope that the sentences become clearer now. Progressive Confucianism is built upon New Confucianism and shares a lot of similar ideas with it. However, I reject that Progressive Confucianism is a branch of New Confucianism. In my view, Progressive Confucianism goes beyond it, specifically on human rights and gender issues. For example, although Mou Zongsan endorses liberal democracy, he rejects the idea of gender equality and the modern conception of marriage.

To Further Broaden the Sight of the Topic:
Progressive Confucianism is a very ambitious topic relating to the studies and reinterpretation of Confucianism in the present day. It would be really interesting if there are more spaces to talk about other scholars and philosophers’ contributions to the ideas of Progressive Confucianism. (For example, the contributions of Roger T. Ames, 陈倩仪, 陈祖为, etc.) I am also wondering how the ideas of Progressive Confucianism are related to current academic debates, social events or political environment. To give the audience an even clearer and deeper impression of the ideas, maybe the comparisons between Progressive Confucianism and liberal Confucianism, Kantianism, and New Confucianism could be demonstrated and summarized in separate sections? Thank you for your article and looking forward to more updates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqin98 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Hi! Thank you for your comments. As you mentioned, Progressive Confucianism is a relatively new project, a definitely ambitious one, and a lot more work can be done. I look forward to seeing more scholars contribute to Progressive Confucianism and doing comparative work of Progressive Confucianism with other schools of philosophy.

Section on the criticism of Progressive Confusionism
I would advise the author to extend a section on the criticism of Progressive Confusionism by including some content-specific objections. For example, introduce Professor Gan Chunsong's point of criticism. According to the following online source: https://weibenglish.sinaapp.com/lecture-by-stephen-c-angle-progressive-confucianism-and-contemporary-society/ (it is a summary of a lecture by Professor Angle at Peking University), Professor Gan Chunsong "believed that neither external criticism nor changes of social circumstances imply that Confucianism need to “step forward.” Confucianism, as a pursuit of certain definitive values, must have a value bearing standpoint, which means sticking to certain unchangeable principles. According to the Book of Rites, although the forms of rites can comply with changes of an era, the spirit behind the rites should never change (e.g. the form of sacrifice may change but the spirit of sacrifice should remain constant). According to Prof. Gan, the feminists who believe that differences between men and women are social constructions are denying the basic fact that at least biologically, men and women are different. Prof. Angle put too much emphasis on the changeable formality of “rites” but neglected the unchangeable substance in the “rites”. In Prof. Gan’s opinion, Confucianism don’t have to be “feminist” so as to make great progress, instead, it should not drift with the current and it should stick to the unchangeable and “outdated” values in a complex modern society." Another point that is being discussed in relation to Progressive Confusionism can be traced in the following online source: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=comparativephilosophy. Here scholars discuss a political theory that might be the most suitable for Confusionism. Their debate illustrates that a lot of work needs to be done to develop Progressive Confusionism, and what is not yet settled is Progressive Confusionist political theory, question on what new rituals should be invented and how they should be invented. AsyaVitko (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Asya Vitko

Re: Thank you a lot for your comments!! I like your suggestion that there could be more space dedicated to how Progressive Confucianism responds to more conservative voices shared by the majority of Confucian scholars in mainland China. I like your question to what extent rituals can be changed. What is Confucian "spirit"? When is the so-called "spirit" gone and Confucianism is no longer Confucianism?

To respond to your above critique on gender, this entry on Progressive Confucianism never suggests that it uses the western feminist argument "gender is a social construction" to justify feminist movements. Progressive Confucianism does not deny that men and women are different biologically. Rather, Progressive Confucianism uses yin-yang cosmology in Chinese culture to indicate that men and women, masculinity and femininity are not static and purely oppositional just like the fluidity exhibited yin and yang. The problems of Chinese traditional view on gender is the result of oppression, limiting individuals' moral development and the society's moral development at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzhang17 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions about organization and narrative
I would like to first acknowledge the author's effort of creating this entry. However, I believe there is room for improvement for both 1) doing a better narrative on the introduced information, 2) bringing more information that illustrates the tenets of Progressive Confucianism. I do share the concerns addressed in previous talk sections. From my point of view, to better deliver the information,two kinds of relationships should be articulated: the relationship between Progressive Confucianism and other strands of Confucianism; the relationship between philosophers, especially consider between members of the Progressive Confucianism camp and between the camp and its potential opponents. As I point this out, I am not saying there is a lack of information in the entry, but the information were provided in a loosely organized manner that could make readers feel hard to follow. For instance, at the initial paragraph, it is said that the term is coined by Angle, but later in the content part, what readers would see is Angle with lots of other scholars' name blended together. In this case, Angle is obviously not the only member in the camp, hence I believe it would be better if in initial introduction several other scholars' name can also be introduced. Additionally what shall also be done in the initial paragraph is give a better explanation of what "progressive" means--since there are lots of stands of Confucianism, and the term "progressive" might be understood differently in different languages. Due to the limit of space, I cannot do one right here, but I do believe it is discussed in the first chapter of Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy, where Angle explained how is the "progressiveness" concern not only moral progress but also politics and society.The first paragraph does somewhat mentioned this, but it does not give reader a clear sense that it is "within Progressive Confucianism".In case you find this could go on too long, I think perhaps introducing a new section discussing "progressiveness" might be a better solution. I also recommend you introduce a new section briefly discussing the similarities and differences between Progressive Confucianism and other strands. What is in the entry now is compare and contrast about specific topics, such as human rights, gender and sexuality. The shortcoming of that would be putting too many new names and terms at ones, which results in readers failure of capturing what is Angles's point and what is his ally's point. I think it what you have now is important, but maybe the order can be changed a bit to make things look clearer. For instance, instead of making a compare/contrast in the first sentence, just explain what Angle thinks on that topic, then bring compare and contrast. What's more, I think more content about self-restriction and self-cultivation could be useful as well. All in all, you may find some of my advises helpful and some may not, but if you need any assistance on improving this entry, I am happy to help making some progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsugakuboy (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Thank you a lot for your comments!! I value your feedback a lot. It is through this kind of conversation that we can make the entry better. Please contribute to the page and help it improve!! I have one concern regarding putting comparative work into the entry of Progressive Confucianism. If there are too many names and schools of philosophy on the page, would it be confusing for readers without a Chinese philosophy background to understand what Progressive Confucianism is? What I have done so far is to summarize some key ideas central to Progressive Confucianism. But after setting up what Progressive Confucianism is, I would love to see more work of comparing and contrasting in separate sections and related entries. This kind of comparing and contrasting work can be tremendously helpful for students and scholars looking for a more in-depth view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzhang17 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

significance and Angle's response
Hi Hongjia, I really really like this page and sincerely appreciate your quite groundbreaking effort in creating this entry. I think the overall structure is pretty well-organized as far as the content it has so far is concerned, but I do also think there are still things that can be added. For example, a section on "significance" and another on Angle's sometimes preemptive response to certain criticisms? As regards the significance section, I think the following quote is a pretty nice example for it despite my indication that it lacks citation, in particular regarding the sentences I bolden.

As a school of Confucian political philosophy that shares some liberal values, Progressive Confucianism goes beyond a hybrid of Confucianism and liberalism. '''People who argue against liberalism in China for the reason that liberalism was not originated in Chinese may find Progressive Confucianism appealing. Accordingly, Progressive Confucianism is able to reach a wider audience than "liberal" Confucianism: both an international audience who cares about Chinese culture and a Chinese audience for internal criticism.'''

As regards the "response" section, I'm wondering if we write more on how Angle has to some degree preemptively addressed certain criticisms he anticipated, such as those that ask if his framework is "Confucianism" enough. A section in Chapter 2 is named "Is this Confucianism?", for instance.

Upon reading some of the earlier comments left by other wiki contributors on this page, I tried to add a section that deals more detailedly with Angle's development of Mou's notion of "self-restriction" but I'm afraid I haven't done a job pleasant enough. There're also certain overlappings with the next section on "the rule of law" that you worked on. I'm having some difficulty reconciling them, in part out of respect for your work which I don't think I should tamper with too much. Whiskey0504 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)