plodding draught horses. And we get plenty of them.
The Doctrine of Social Status, as Confucianism has been popularly called, is the
social philosophy behind the family system. It is the doctrine that makes for social
order in China. It is the principle of social structure and social control at the same
time. The principal idea is status, or mingfen, which gives every man and woman a
definite place in society. In conformity with the humanist ideal of "everything in its
place," the social ideal is also that of "every man in his place." Ming means "name,"
and/*/* means "duty." Confucianism is actually known as mingchiao, or "religion of
names." A name is a title that gives a man his definite status in any society and defines
his relationships with others. Without a name, c>r a definition of the social
relationship, a man would not know his^tt, or duties in that relationship, and hence
would not know how to behave. The Confucian idea is that if every man knows his
place and acts in accordance with his position, social order will be ensured. Of the
"five cardinal human relationships," four are occupied with the family. They are the
relationships between king and subject, between father and son, between husband and
wife, and those between brothers and between friends. The last relationship between
friends may be identified with the family, because friends are those who can be
included in the family circle?family friends." The family then becomes the
starting-point for all moral conduct.
It is only fair to mention that Confucius never intended family consciousness to take
the place of social or national consciousness and develop into a form of magnified
selfishness 梒 onsequences which, with all his practical wisdom, he had not foreseen.
The evils of the family system were already apparent in the times of Hanfeitse (end of
the third century B.C.), in my opinion the greatest of China's political thinkers of that
period. Pictures of the political practices of his times contained in Hanfeitse's works
fit in perfectly for present-day China, such as the breaking down of the civil service
system through nepotism and favouritism, robbing the nation to enrich the family, the
erection of rich villas by politicians, the absence of any punishment for offending
officials, the consequent absence of "public citizenship" (in Hanfeitse's own words)
and general lack of social consciousness. These were all pointed out by Hanfeitse, who advocated a government by law as the way out, and who had to drink hemlock,
like Socrates.
But, in theory at least, Confucius did not mean family consciousness to degenerate
into a form of magnified selfishness at the cost of social integrity. He did, in his moral
system, also allow for a certain amount of ultra-domestic kindness. He meant the
moral training in the family as the basis for general moral training, and he planned
that from the general moral training a society should emerge which would live
happily and harmoniously together. Only in this sense can one understand the
tremendous emphasis placed on "filial piety,*' which is regarded as the "first of all
virtues." The Chinese word for "culture" or "religion/* ckiao, is even derived from the
word for "filial piety/' hsiao, being written with the sign for "filial piety" plus a
causative radical (meaning "making filial"). So explains the Hsiaoking (Classic of
Filial Piety}:
Confucius said: "The reason why the gentleman teaches filial piety is not because it is
to be seen in the home and everyday life. Hfe teaches filial piety in order that man
may respect all those who are fathers in the world. He teaches brotherliness in the
younger brother, in order that man may respect all those who are elder brothers in the
world. He teaches the duty of the subject, in order that man may respect all who are
rulers in the world."
Again, Confucius said:
"Those who love their parents dare not show hatred to others. Those who respect their
parents, dare not show rudeness to others."
In this sense he could say to Tsengtse, his disciple:
"Filial piety is the basis of virtue, and the origin of culture. Sit down again, and let me
tell you. The body and hair and skin are received from the parents, and may not be
injured: this is the beginning of filial piety* To do the right thing and walk according
to the right morals, thus leaving a good name in posterity, in order to glorify one's
ancestors: this is the culmination of filial piety. Filial piety begins with serving one's
parents, leads to serving one's king, and ends in establishing one's character. . , ."
The whole moral philosophy was based on the theory of imitation in society and the
theory of habit in education. The method of sodal education was by establishing the
right mental attitude from childhood, beginning naturally at home. There is nothing
wrong in this. Its only weakness was the mixing of politics with morals. The
consequences are fairly satisfactory for the family, but disastrous for the state.
Seen as a social system, it was consistent. It firmly believed that a nation of good
brothers and good friends should make a good nation. Yet, seen in modern eyes, Confucianism omitted out of the social relationships man's social obligations toward
the stranger, and great and catastrophic was the omission. Samaritan virtue was
unknown and practically discouraged. Theoretically, it was provided for in the
"doctrine of reciprocity." Confucius said of the gentleman: "Wanting to be successful
himself, he helps others to be successful; wanting to stand on his own feet, he helps
others to stand on their feet." But this relationship toward the "others" was not one of
the five cardinal relationships, and not so clearly defined. The family, with its friends,
became a walled castle, with the greatest communistic co-operation and mutual help
within, but coldly indifferent toward, and fortified against, the world without. In the
end, as it worked out, the family became a walled castle outside which everything is
legitimate loot.
III. NEPOTISM, CORRUPTION AND MANNERS
Every family in China is really a communistic unit, with the principle of "do what you
can and take what you need" guiding its functions. Mutual helpfulness is developed to
a very high degree, encouraged by a sense of moral obligation and family honour.
Sometimes a brother will cross the sea thousands of miles away to redeem the honour
of a bankrupt brother. A well-placed and comparatively successful man generally
contributes the greater, if not the entire, share of the expenses of the whole household,
and it is common practice, worthy of no special merit, for a man to send his nephews
to school. A successful man, if he is an official, always gives the best jobs to his
relatives, and if there are not ready jobs he can create sinecure ones. Thus sinecurism
and nepotism developed, which, coupled with economic pressure, became an
irresistible force, undermining, rather than being undermined, by any political reform
movement. The force is so great that repeated efforts at reform, with the best of
intentions, have proved unsuccessful.
To look at it kindly, nepotism is no worse than favouritism of other sorts. A minister
does not place only his nephews in the ministry, but he also has to place the nephews
of other high officials, if they are high enough, who write him letters of
recommendation. Where is he going to place them, except in sinecure posts and
"advisorships"? The economic pressure and the pressure of overpopulation are so
keen, and there are so many educated men who can write literary essays but who
cannot repair a carburettor or set up a radio, that every new public organ or every
official assuming a new post is daily flooded with, literally, hundreds of letters of
recommendation. It is quite natural, therefore, that charity should begin at home. For
the family system must be taken as the Chinese traditional system of insurance against
unemployment. Every family takes care of its own unemployed, and having taken
care of its unemployed, its next best work is to find employment for them. It is better
than charity because it teaches in the less lucky members a sense of independence,
and the members so helped in turn help other members of the family. Besides, the
minister who robs the nation to feed the family, either for the present or for the next three or four generations, by amassing half a million to ten million or more dollars,1
is only trying to glorify his ancestors and be a "good" man of the family. Graft, or
"squeeze," may be a public vice, but is always a family virtue. As all Chinese are
fairly "good" men, so, as Ku Hungming says, the commonest conjugation in Chinese
grammar is that of the verb "to squeeze": "Isqueeze>you squeeze, he squeezes/ we
squeeze, you squeeze^ they squeeze." It is a regular verb.
And so, strange as it may seem, Chinese communism breeds Chinese individualism,
and family-defined co-operation results in general kleptomania with an altruistic tinge
to it. Kleptomania can go safely with the greatest personal honesty and even with
philanthropy, which is nothing strange even in the West. The pillars of society, who in
China are the most photographed men in the daily papers and who easily donate a
hundred thousand dollars to a university or a civic hospital, are but returning the
money they robbed from the people back to the people. In this, the East and the West
are strangely alike. The difference is that in the West there is always the fear of
exposure, whereas in the East it is taken for granted, The rampant corruption of the
Harding administration did, after all, end up in one official being brought to justice.
However unfair that was on him, it did seem to say that graft is wrong.
11 allow myself to mention only the dead as examples. General Wang Chanyiian,
Governor of Hupeh, was worth about thirty millions; General Wu Chunsheng,
Governor of Heilungkiang, was even richer, holding vast tracts of realty that would be
difficult to estimate. God alone knows how much Tang Yulin of Jehol fame was worth.
He is still alive.
In China, though a man may be arrested for stealing a purse, he is not arrested for
stealing the national treasury, not even when our priceless national treasures in the
National Museum of Peiping are stolen by the responsible authorities and publicly
exposed. For we have such a thing as the necessity of political corruption, which
follows as a logical corollary of the theory of "government by gentlemen" (see page
196). Confucius told us to be governed by gentlemen, and we actually treat them like
gentlemen, without budgets, reports of expenditures, legislative consent of the people
or prison cells for official convicts. And the consequence is that their moral
endowments do not quite equal the temptations put in their way, and thus many of
them steal.
The beauty of our democracy is that the money thus robbed or stolen always seeps
back to the people, if not through a university, then through all the people who depend
upon the official and serve him, down to the house servant. The servant who squeezes
his master is but helping him to return the money to the people, and he does it with a
clear conscience. The house servant has a domestic problem behind him, differing in
magnitude but not in nature from the domestic problem of his master.
Certain social characteristics arise from the family system, apart from nepotism and official corruption already mentioned. They may be summed up as the lack of social
discipline. It defeats any form of social organization, as it de feats the civil service
system through nepotism. It makes a man "sweep the snow in front of his door, and
not bother about the frost on his neighbour's roof." This is not so bad. What is worse
is that it makes a man throw his refuse outside his neighbour's door*
The best illustration is the so-called Chinese courtesy, a very misunderstood topic.
Chinese courtesy cannot be defined, as Emerson has defined it, as "the happy way of
doing things/* So much depends on who it is you are doing things with. Is he o f your
family or a friend of your family? The Chinese have just as much good manners
toward people outside their families and friends as the Englishmen in the colonies
have toward people outside their race. One Englishman told me that "the good thing is
that we are not proud toward ourselves." This seems quite sufficient for the
Englishmen, since "ourselves" make the universe. The Chinese are not bad-mannered
toward their friends and acquaintances, but beyond that limit the Chinese as a social
being is positively hostile toward his neighbour, be he a fellow-passenger in a street
car or a neighbour at the theatre-ticket office.
I have seen on a rainy day at a bus station in the inland a fellow-passenger who, in the
mad scramble for seats, found himself occupying the driver's seat, and who
