Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues

Cosmopolitanism has a long history in the West, and the cosmopolitanisms advocated by different scholars have their own perspectives and emphases. However, if we want to summarize the basic characteristics and central ideas of cosmopolitanism, there are two points that are interrelated and mutually supportive. First, the understanding of selfhood is not limited to a specific ethnic group that includes primordial ties such as mother tongue and race, but rather it pays attention to the universal connotation of human nature reflected by different ethnic groups; second, the recognition of value is not limited to specific regions such as place of birth and country of nationality but is based on the common and core values of human beings. This article aims to argue that Confucius was a cosmopolitan by analyzing his thought and observing his practice. 

As for the cosmopolitanism in Confucius’ thought, let’s begin with the Analects. Confucius said in the Analects that “a noble person pays attention to virtue whereas a small person pays attention to his/her native land.” We know that the noble person is the ideal personality that not only Confucius himself pursued but also all later Confucians also aspired to. So, for Confucius, what a noble person cares for should be his/her virtue rather than his/her native land. Because Confucius did not believe that becoming a noble person is necessarily limited to a certain geographical place, in addition to the phrase quoted above, he also said in the Analects that “if my ideal cannot be practiced, I prefer to drift on the sea by taking a raft.” Indeed, the idea that drifting on the sea by taking a raft could indicate that Confucius was so disappointed that he could not get support from all the kingdoms he had visited. On the other hand, we should note that this statement does not necessarily mean that Confucius gave up his ideal and endeavor. It can mean a positive pioneering and searching for new possibilities. 

As a man who walks his talk, Confucius practiced his cosmopolitanism. Now let us have a look at his cosmopolitan practice. The most convincing cosmopolitan practice of Confucius was his travel among those kingdoms or principalities. I mentioned Erasmus, the famous cosmopolitan of the Renaissance, who left Rotterdam where he was born, travelled around in Europe, and never went back. Unlike Erasmus, Confucius eventually went back to his motherland, the Kingdom of Lu, in his old age. 

The territory of China in the Spring and Autumn periods was divided into many principalities or kingdoms. It is meaningful to investigate which principalities and kingdoms Confucius visited, in what order, and what Confucius did in these different principalities and kingdoms. When we consider Confucius’ travels today, we can say the scope of his travels was limited to the central part of China, mainly in the area of Henan province in today’s China. We should remember that before the Qin established a united China by annexing other principalities and kingdoms, both written and spoken languages, currencies, and even clothing differed. In this sense, Confucius's travel between those principalities and kingdoms was truly transnational. 

Why did Confucius leave his motherland for other lands? Because the ideals Confucius pursued were universal rather than local. Somebody might argue that even though Confucius left the Kingdom of Lu for many other principalities and kingdoms and stayed outside of the Kingdom of Lu for 14 years, he never found a king to promote and realize his ideals, did he? As far as the political practice of Confucius is concerned, this observation is not wrong. Not only Confucius, but almost all the authentic Confucians in Chinese history were politically marginalized. In fact, the life of Confucius as a homeless dog could be regarded as an epitome of the political lives of almost all Confucian figures in history. But what makes Confucius “Confucius” and what makes Confucians “Confucians” is nothing but the principle that values discerning right from wrong, not success or failure in politics. 

Of course, cosmopolitanism is not without its own problems. From the beginning, cosmopolitanism and its criticisms have gone hand in hand. The book For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (1996) not only reflects the cosmopolitanism advocated by Martha C. Nussbaum but also contains questions and criticism raised by a cluster of the most brilliant minds in the contemporary West about the problems possibly caused by cosmopolitanism. The most fundamental and common critique of cosmopolitanism holds that cosmopolitanism ignores the specific, the concrete, and the near at hand. As American conservative Rich Lowry pointed out in his recently published article, “The Treason of the Elites,” “cosmopolitanism has always been open to the charge that—whatever its broad-mindedness or idealism—it cultivates a contempt for what’s near, immediate, and tangible, in favor of what’s far away.” 

By contrast, the rooted cosmopolitanism of Confucius could avoid the ignorance of the specific, concrete, and near at hand. This is an important feature of the cosmopolitanism of Confucianism. One of the most fundamental claims of Confucianism, and of Confucius in particular, is that the realization of any universal ideal must follow two principles. One is from near to far, from oneself to others; the other is situation-oriented or time/space-based. There are two articulations of the first principle in the Analects, one negative and the other positive: “Do not do to others if you do not want others do to you”; “If you want to establish yourself, also seek to establish others; if you want to enlarge yourself, also seek to enlarge others.” Later, in the Mencius, the noted expression, “to treat the elders in your own family with reverence and then extend this treatment to the elders in the families of others; to treat the youth in your own family with kindness and then extend this treatment to the youth in the families of others,” was also an example that followed the principle. 

As for the second principle, the situation-oriented one, the most demonstrative examples were the answers Confucius made to the question “What is ren?” raised by his disciples. Confucius did not provide a single definition of ren but gave his different answers according to different contexts of the questions and even to the different characters of the questioners. For example, when Yan Yuan 顏淵 asked about ren, Confucius replied: “To control yourself and return to ritual.” When Zhonggong 仲弓 asked, Confucius replied: “When you go abroad, to behave to others as if you were receiving great guests; to employ the people as if you were assisting at a great sacrifice; do not to do others if you do not want other do to you; to have no resentment against you in the country or the family.” In the light of this, although ren for Confucius was a universal principle, he always put his explanation of what ren is in concrete contexts and situations, and ren thereby avoided becoming a universal but abstract and hollow concept, out of reach. 

There is a strong resonance between the Confucian critique of the “undifferentiated love” advocated by Mohism and Hilary Putnam’s critique of the “universal reason” advocated by Martha C. Nussbaum. People like Hilary Putnam probably do not oppose cosmopolitanism to deny the existence of universality. Putnam does, however, stress that “actual reasoning is necessarily always situated within one or another historical tradition.... We all have to live and judge from within our particular inheritances while remaining open to insights and criticisms from outside.” The rooted cosmopolitanism of Confucius was also conscious of this and did not ignore it in the slightest. As a matter of fact, Confucius’ emphasis on historical and cultural tradition is well-known. But how does Confucius' rooted cosmopolitanism place its emphasis on historical and cultural tradition? Let’s make this clear by examining the following passage in the book of Mencius: 

“When Confucius was leaving Qi, with his hand he strained off the water in which his rice was being rinsed, took the rice, and went away. When he left Lu, he said, “I will set out by- and-by. It was the right way to leave the motherland.” When it was proper to go away
quickly, he did so; when it was proper to delay, he did so.”

This passage describes the different ways that Confucius left Qi and Lu. But how should we understand these two different attitudes Confucius took? The same leaving and two different ways are also reflections of the rooted cosmopolitanism of Confucius. On the one hand, this story describes the “leaving” of Confucius. On the other hand, because Lu is where Confucius was born and grew up, he had a primordial tie to its language, history, and culture. In other words, Confucius had a natural affection for Lu. Although Confucius was not limited to parochialism and chose to leave Lu, he still showed some nostalgia when he left Lu. So, the same “leaving” and two different ways of leaving show precisely that Confucius did not pay attention only to the “one” but also took “many” into consideration.

It is reasonable to emphasize the importance of the historical and cultural traditions that each person has inherited, as scholars like Hilary Putnam have done. Putnam’s critique of Nussbaum does not apply to Confucius since the emphasis on historical and cultural tradition is an important part of what Confucius advocated. But the root in the rooted cosmopolitanism of Confucius is not historical and cultural tradition per se. It goes beyond tradition and touches the root of human heart-nature. In this regard, the rooted cosmopolitanism of Confucius is different from that of Appiah’s. Appiah might not accept that ren constitutes the root of cosmopolitanism. He thinks that “what makes the cosmopolitan experience possible for us, whether as readers or as travelers, is not that we share beliefs and values because of our common capacity for reason.” The complex and diverse modern world where Appiah lives, the rich and colorful personal experiences including various ethnicities he has encountered and transcontinental places he has lived, all these are hard to imagine for Confucius who lived some 2,500 years ago. In any case, the distinctive feature and significance of Confucius' rooted cosmopolitanism lies in that, as a thought and practice that emerged 2,500 years ago, it already went beyond parochialism and achieved balance between universality and particularity. 

At the end of this article, I would like to express two points. First, although the research in this paper contains some Chinese and Western ideas that I want to compare, the comparison of Chinese and Western thought itself is not the object and task of this article. As already pointed out, the introduction and involvement of Western thought in this article is meaningful only if it helps to clarify the relevant thoughts of Confucius. Second, the approach and nature of this research lies in description rather than evaluation. In short, the main purpose of this article is to demonstrate the thought and practice of Confucius as a cosmopolitan through solid textual analysis and historical research, and on this basis point out the characteristics and significance of Confucius’ rooted cosmopolitanism. In my opinion, for Confucius’ rooted cosmopolitanism to not only serve as a general principle in today’s world but also be sufficient to explain complex situations and problems, it must assimilate and digest the nutrients of Western cosmopolitanism to the greatest extent. Only then could it be truly developed and innovated. 

This essay is an excerpt of a longer paper, written as part of the author's participation in the Georgetown University Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues' U.S.-China Research Group on Cosmopolitanism, that will be published in a forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture.

Peng Guoxiang is the Qiu Shi Distinguished Professor of Chinese Philosophy, Intellectual History and Religions and director of the Ma Yifu International Center for the Studies in Humanities at Zhejiang University.