Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse Stephen C. Angle Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse BY John Makeham. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008. Pp. xii + 398. $49.95. There is little doubt that the wounds inflicted upon the body of traditional Confucianism by the end of China's civil service examinations in 1905, the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911, and the New Culture Movement that began in 1915 collectively proved fatal. With the institutions that had given Confucianism its concrete reality dead or dying, Confucians since the early twentieth century have been struggling to find a new body of practice that can host its philosophical and spiritual essence-what the eminent historian Yu Ying-shih has referred to as Confucianism's wandering soul. John Makeham's Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse is an impressive investigation of these efforts over the last thirty years. It is a natural follow-up to the work Makeham has previously done on the twentieth-century "New Confucian" movement and follows the story of Confucianism all the way up to 2005. Makeham offers no final pronouncement on the prognosis for Confucianism, suggesting that readers can form their own opinions about how adequately the academic, discursive "body" he describes has succeeded in hosting the wandering soul's return. However, it is clear that Makeham is at least somewhat skeptical, since he argues that contemporary Confucian academic discourse is neither broadly connected to moral practice nor robustly creative in philosophical terms. His book thus not only offers a valuable perspective on what has been happening in recent years under the banner of "Confucianism" but also [End Page 173] presents a trenchant challenge that proponents of Confucianism would do well to take seriously. The subject of the book is "Confucian learning" (ruxue 儒學), which refers to Confucianism primarily as it is embodied in the activities and writing of academics in China and Taiwan, though Makeham also spends time on recent discussions of "Confucian teaching" (rujiao 儒教) and its relation to religion. Lost Soul is divided into four parts. Part 1, "Historical Background," covers events in the 1980s and early 1990s. Makeham stresses the role of Tu Wei-ming and the impact of efforts to promote Confucian education in Singapore. Even though the institution-building efforts in which Tu participated were ultimately abandoned, they provided a platform for the idea that a "creatively transformed" Confucianism could have renewed relevance in the contemporary world. Another theme is the important role played by mainland scholar Fang Keli. Fang, a Marxist, led important research projects on ruxue-and more specifically on New Confucianism-starting in 1986. Makeham covers the background, motivation, and some of the content of this research. It is in this context that he first introduces his argument that the revival of ruxue in China is not, to any significant degree, the result of a conscious government policy to promote Confucianism as an alternative ideology. Finally, Makeham also looks in some detail at activities in Taiwan, both because of their intrinsic importance and because he observes that rivalry and (more positively) cross-fertilization between scholars on both sides of the Taiwan Straits have played a crucial role in developing and sustaining academic interest in ruxue. Part 2 is organized around the theme of ruxue and Chinese culture. Makeham begins by exploring the degree to which ruxue has been understood as the core of Chinese culture, with special reference to the widespread view that it has "thoroughly penetrated every dimension and stratum of traditional society and its institutions" (p. 111). For such broad influence to be even conceivable, one suspects that "ruxue" would have to be referring to more than one thing, and indeed, part of Makeham's purpose is to show the various dimensions or aspects of ruxue that scholars have distinguished. He suggests that these dimensions are typically defined in dyadic terms: politicized versus popular, institutional versus social, official versus unofficial, and so on. In most cases, one dimension is seen as good and worth developing, [End Page 174] while the other is problematic and in need of critique or outright rejection. For many analysts, the multidimensional nature of ruxue...