The Problem with Russell's China

Our Western civilization is built upon assumptions, which, to a psychologist, are rationalizings of excessive energy. Our industrialism, our militarism, our love of progress, our missionary zeal, our imperialism, our passion for dominating and organizing, all spring from a superflux of the itch for activity.
While it is certainly true that the West has a greater crave and obsession with efficiency than the East, it is an over-generalisation to argue that the Oriental society has not a desire for progress. Is power maniac not present in the endless wars between the eunuchs? And as Russell later mentioned, only a small portion of the Chinese population are literate, hence the Confuciusian doctrine is less incorporated in the mass than in the elite. Whence come from the tolerance and ‘peaceable’ nature of the peasants? Certainly not from Confucius; it is in fact difficult to trace the root of such common sentiment, for there is little record about the lives of peasants in China, who almost invariably were assigned the lowest status. It is arguable that only until Ming dynasty was the general population sufficiently educated – which the rise of much easier novels like Shui Hu – making the point that the Chinese are inherently more peaceable an extremely contrived/strenuous one. I do believe that there should be something common in human nature – the desire for progress and not degradation, and even for better material comfort. It is again dubious whether the apparatus of Western progress is driven mainly by this ‘superflux of the itch for activity’, for what exactly it is that makes the Westerners more energetic has not been proven to be in existence. In fact, leaning my ears to Descartes’s ‘epistemological priority’, it is fairly obvious to me that human nature should be assumed to be uniform unless there is some internal or external stimulus that disturbs the uniformity. Many would then point to the environment – but if Russell is referring to environment as the ‘ultimate cause’, then he seems to be contradicting himself when he describes the Chinese people’s reaction to the Yellow River, as opposed to that of the Westerners, as a result of their peaceable nature, rather than the cause of it. Since it cannot be established that outside stimulus – environment or education - changes human nature in such a way that distinguishes the West from the Chinese, whether the West is any different from the East is open to further exploration. But if one were to assume supernatural design – then there is little room for doubt that Russell could still be right in examining the effect first, and then conjecturing the cause.

And at last I began to feel that all politics are inspired by a grinning devil, teaching the energetic and quickwitted to torture submissive populations for the profit of pocket or power or theory.

Oh please don’t say that. That is very disheartening to hear – for a future politician or something of that nature. But is he really referring to the study of politics here? Seems more like international relations to me. He seems to say, ‘leave the Chinese people alone, go home and clear up your own mess first! '

Whatever may be said against filial piety carried to excess, it is certainly less harmful than its Western counterpart, patriotism. Both, of course, err in inculcating duties to a certain portion of mankind to the practical exclusion of the rest. But patriotism directs one's loyalty to a fighting unit, which filial piety does not (except in a very primitive society).
The principal method of advancing the interests of one's nation is homicide; the principal method of advancing the interest of one's family is corruption and intrigue. Therefore family feeling is less harmful than patriotism.
Very impressive – the parallel drawn between filial piety and patriotism. Indeed, the common good might still be not good enough.

David Hume on a party-state democracy

‘An established government has an infinite advantage, by that very circumstance of its being established; the bulk of mankind being governed by authority, not reason, and never attributing authority to any thing that has not the recommendation of antiquity. To tamper, therefore, in this affair, or try experiments merely upon the credit of supposed argument and philosophy, can never be the part of a wise magistrate, who will bear a reverence to what carries the marks of age; and though he may attempt some improvements for the public good, yet will he adjust his innovations, as much as possible, to the ancient fabric, and preserve entire the chief pillars and supports of the constitution.”

China's Unresolved Issues

Something about the influence of Confucianism:
It embraces a secular worldview. Confucius believes that the world and its people are essentially moral, and that people should train themselves in benevolence and in humanity, and extend them to other people. His idea of morality starts from filial duty to fraternal submission to helping everyone. The government’s role is to teach people virtue and ceremonial rites.

It can thus be seen that Confucius’ ideals are practical, ethical, and orientated towards ‘now’, which contrast sharply with that of Plato or Aristotle, which are theoretical, metaphysical, and concerned about hereafter and the origin of life. The merchants are given very low status unlike in Western capitalism, which might explain why the attributes of Protestantism is not widely accepted by the Chinese population.

Confucius advocates a hierarchical organization. The nature of society should be family-based, and hierarchically organized. People’s fundamental loyalty and submission is to one’s family, not the state or the public. This kind of structure discourages independence and innovation.

The emperor is believed to serve as the connection of Heaven and Earth, and the humanity. Thus his right to rule is premised on his ability to maintain harmony between Heaven and Earth, him and his officials, and his officials and the people. To be able to achieve that, he must be morally upright, and perform ritual in the appropriate order. Revolution is permissible if the ruler is considered a mere commoner, and society then searches for the new ruler who is appointed by the Mandate of Heaven. This system permits a new ruler, but not a new system.

Birth forth from such a system is a group of educated elite which forms the scholar-gentry class. Officials and selected for their technical expertise as well as moral quality, which was evaluated via a nation-wide examination on the work of Confucius and his disciples. This system of rule by men, and not rule by law poses the question of how leaders should be appointed in the new age.

This is the day that the Lord has made!

I thought yesterday was just another day of doing community work. I was knocking doors, distributing flyers just as usual. Then this door opened in front of me and the uncle told me that he could not come to today’s event because of the haze, which according to the morning’s report caused the SPI to shoot up to 128. Then he said, ‘Xiao Mei ah, go back home lah, don’t come out running around, it’s bad for your health.’

‘for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
‘I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
… 'And the King will answer and say to them, ‘assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

This is one of the instances that makes you feel that indeed the order is being slowly restored, and I could not help but anticipate with great joy the day the walls will be torn down and people will become reunited as one. Everyday as ordinary as it is could be, if we are willing, another day for you and me in paradise.

Common Sense.

Paine goes on to discuss the British form of governance, which brings forth one observation which I deem a self-evident truth that ‘only has to be stated so that it becomes obvious’.

The nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of things which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind.

His point is that the king is appointed by a power which people claim exist, but which in fact does not exist. And monarchy is often undesirable because it excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. By making the crown an overbearing part of the English Constitution, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in the possession of the key.

The next point that he adopted, concerning the nature and source of this special form of governance, is much more contentious:

It arises as much or more from national pride than reason. As a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in form of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.