5

The Morality of
Personal Relationships

The basic structure of Chinese rural society is what I have called " a
differential mode of association" (chaxugeju). This pattern is com-
posed of distinctive networks spreading out from each individual's
personal connections. It is quite different from the modern West-
ern organizational mode of association (tuantigeju). In such a pat-
tern, personal relationships depend on a common structure. Peo-
J)le attach themselves to a preexisting structure and then, through
that structure, form personal relationships. The concept of the cit-
izen, for example, necessarily follows the development of the state.
It seems likely that this type of organizational pattern grew out of
primitive tribal formations. In primitive nomadic economies, these
patterns were quite prominent. Depending on each other in daily
life, tribal peoples could not survive if they spread out among the
mountains, with each person living alone. To them, a cohesive or-
ganization was a precondition of life. But it is different for those
people living in a settled agricultural society, where everyone earns
his or her own living from the land and feels the need of compan-
ions only under fortuitous, temporary, or special circumstances.
To these people, starting relationships with others is a matter of
secondary importance. Moreover, they need connections to differ-
ent degrees on different occasions. They do not seem to need large,
continuous organizations. Therefore, their society has adopted a
differential mode of association.
These two patterns of social organization give rise to different
types of morality. Morality is the belief that people in a society
should abide by certain norms of social behavior. Morality always
includes regulations, beliefs, and sanctions, all of which are shaped
by the constraints imposed by a social structure. According to a
sociological perspective, morality is society's sanction on individ-
71
72 Morality of Personal Relationships

ual behavior; it makes people conform to established social norms

in order to maintain the existence and continuity of the society.
In the Western pattern, the fundamental concept of morality is
built on the relationship between the organization and the individ-
ual. An organization is an entity that transcends the individual.
Even so, organization itself has no material reality. It is impossible
to call material things an organization. Instead, an organization is
really a kind of social relationship among human beings. It is a
force controlling individual behavior. It is an object on which the
composition of individual elements depends. It is a common will
that precedes individual members, even as it relies on them for its
very existence.
The concept of organization can be expressed only by symbols.
It is for this reason that the idea of an omnipresent God arose in
the West. The relationship between the organization and the indi-
vidual is signified in the relationship between God and his disci-
ples. God is a judge who rewards and punishes, a keeper of justice
who is an omnipotent protector.
If we want to understand the morality produced by Western
organizational patterns, we must never leave out their religious
concepts. Religious piety and beliefs are not only the source of
Western morality but also the force that supports Western behav-
ioral norms. From the concept of God, who is actually the symbol
of universal organization, two important corollaries have emerged.
One is that everyone is equal before God, and the other is that God
treats everyone with equal justice.
Jesus addressed God as the Father, as everyone's Father. He
even publicly rejected his own parents, who gave birth to him and
brought him up. To achieve this equality, according to Christian
beliefs, Jesus was born of a young virgin; the special and personal
relationship between father and son is denied here. This denial is
actually not nonsense; it is, instead, a powerful symbol of the pub-
lic quality of organizations. God represents the universality of pub-
lic organizations. God is necessarily without a private side. Jesus
symbolizes each person within this universal organization. Besides
a biological father, each person, therefore, shares a more important
heavenly father-that is, an all-encompassing organization. Only
by means of this conceptual thinking can the equality among indi-
viduals be established. The relationship of each member to the or-
 Morality of Personal Relationships 73

ganization is the same. This organization cannot be ,any individu-

al's private possession. These complex ideas are the very ones that
form the basis of the American Declaration of Independence, whose
main theme is clearly stated at the very beginning: "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
But God is not of this world. He symbolizes the invisible entity
of universal organization. To carry out the will of organizations,
ministers are needed. The term minister is a basic concept in the
Western organizational mode of association. The person who car-
ries out God's will is a minister, and the official who executes the
}>ower in an organization is also a minister. Both of them are agents.
They are not gods themselves. Nor do they somehow embody the
organization itself. The difference between God and his ministers,
or between the state and its ministers, is never ambiguous.
Throughout th~ history of Christianity, people have time and again
tried to communicate with God dilectly and have opposed the agents
on the grounds that they do not truly act at God's behest. Follow-
ing the same logic, and in fact having grown out of it, the Decla-
ration of Independence further states, "That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of gov-
ernment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it."
God treats everyone with justice, impartiality, and love. If agents
violate these "self-evident truths," they become disqualified. Thus,
a concept of individual rights is inherently a part of the morality of
the Western mode of organization. People should respect each oth-
er's rights. Organizations also should protect individual rights. To
prevent the misuse of power by agents in organizations, constitu-
tions have come into being. The concept of constitutions is coor-
dinated with the Western concept of public service. The state may
ask for people's service, but it must promise not to infringe on their
rights. The state should exercise power only within the scope of
justice.
I have talked a lot about the morality inherent in Western orga-
nizational patterns. My purpose has been to provide a contrast to
the characteristics of morality found in the Chinese mode of asso-
ciation. In these self-centered networks of social relationships, the
74 Morality of Personal Relationships

most important feature is certainly ke ji fu Ii (subdue the self and

follow the rites). "From the Son of Heaven down to ordinary peo-
ple, all must consider the cultivation of the person as the root of
everything. 1 This idea is the starting point in the system of moral-
ity inherent in Chinese social structure.
Extending out from the self are the social spheres formed by
one's personal relationships. Each sphere is sustained by a specific
type of social ethic. The process by which the social spheres extend
outward takes various paths, but the basic path is through kinship,
which includes relations between parents and children and among
siblings born of the same parents. The ethical values that match
this sphere are filial piety and fraternal duty. IIFilial piety and fra-
ternal suhmission-are they not the foundation of a moral life?" 2
An additional route out from the self is through friends. The ethical
values that match friendship are loyalty (zhong) and sincerity (xin).
As Confucius said, "When acting on another's behalf, shouldn't
you always be loyal? When dealing with friends, shouldn't you
always be sincere? ... Make loyalty and sincerity your first prin-
ciples. Have no friends who do not measure up to yourself." 3 Con-
fucius once concluded, //A young man, when at home, should be
filial, and when out in the world should be respectful to his elders.
He should be earnest and truthful. He should overflow with love,
and cultivate the friendship of the good."4
Now I must mention a more complicated concept, ren (benevo-
lence). As I have said, the Chinese pattern of social organization
embraces no ethical concepts that transcend specific types of hu-
man relationships, as is the case in the West. Filial piety, fraternal
duty, loyalty, and sincerity-these are all ethical principles found
in private personal relationships. Confucius, however, frequently
mentioned rene In the Analects, he explained ren more than any
other concept, but these explanations were also the most elusive.
On the one hand, he repeatedly tried to clarify the meaning of the
word; on the other hand, "In his conversations, Confucius seldom
spoke of profit, destiny, and benevolence."s On several occasions,

1. The Great Learning, sec. 6. 2. Analects, Book 1, chap. 2.

3. Ibid., Book 1, chaps. 3 and 8. 4. Ibid., Book 1, chap. 6.
5. Ibid., Book 9, chap. 1. Fei here is pointing out a contradiction in the Analects.
There are frequent references to ren, but no predse definition, despite attempts by
Confucius's disciples to obtain one.
 Morality of Personal Relationships 75

Confucius was simply unable to express what he seemed to have

on his mind.
"Sima Niu asked Confucius about rene The Master said, A man I

possessing ren is cautious and slow in speaking.' Niu asked, lIs this
what is meant by ren?' The Master. said, Acting in a benevolent
I

way is difficult. Is it any wonder that one should be reluctant to

speak?' "6 At another point, Confucius said, "I have never met a
person who loves rene There may be such a case, but I have never
seen it." 7 At yet another point, when Meng Wubo asked whether
Zilu was ren, Confucius said, "I cannot say." When Meng Wubo
repeated the question, the Master said, "In a government of a state
of even a thousand chariots, a man can be given the responsibility
of managing the army, but whether he is ren or not I cannot say."
He was asked, "What about Qiu?" Confucius replied, "Qiu can be
given the responsibility of being the steward in a town with a thou-
sand households or in a noble family with a hundred chariots, but
\vhether he is ren or not I cannot say." "What about Chi?" Confu-
cius said, "When Chi puts on his finery and takes his place at court,
tie can be given the responsibility of conversing with the honored
guests, but whether he is ren or not I cannot say."s
Many times, Confucius observed that what someone did "is in-
sufficient to prove benevolence." But when he tried to explain ren
in a positive way, he always returned to the ethical qualities in
personal relationships: "Subduing yourself and submitting to rit-
ual is what constitutes ren." He also said, "Whoever is able to put
five things into practice throughout the whole world is certainly
rene These are earnestness, consideration for others, trustworthi-
ness, diligence, and generosity. If you are earnest, you will never
meet with disrespect. If you are considerate to others, you will win
the people's hearts. If you are trustworthy, people will trust you.
If you are diligent, you will be successful in your undertakings. If
you are generous, you will find plenty of people who are willing
to serve you." 9
Confucius's difficulty is that, with a loosely organized rural so-
ciety such as China's, it was not easy to find an all-encompassing
ethical concept. The concept of ren is, in fact, only a logical synthe-

6. Ibid., Book 12, chap. 3. 7. Ibid., Book 4, chap. 6.

8. Ibid., Book 5, chap. 7. 9. Ibid., Book 7, chap. 6.
76 Morality of Personal Relationships

sis, a compilation of all the ethical qualities of private, personal

relationships. Chinese social patterns, unlike Western ones, lack
organizations that transcend individual personal relationships. In
China, there was only the all-encompassing tianxia (everything un-
der heaven), as in the phrase Everything under heaven returns to
II

ren." Tianxia matches ren in its ambiguity, and so ren cannot be

more clearly defined than tianxia. Therefore, whenever Confucius
wanted to clarify ren, he had to return to the ethical principles of
individual relationships: filial piety, fraternal duty, loyalty, and
sincerity. Similarly, when he tried to clarify tianxia, he had to re-
turn to concrete relationships themselves, such as those between
fathers and sons, between older and younger brothers, and among
friends.
In the traditional Chinese system of morality, there is no con-
cept of "love" 'such as that which exists in Christianity-universal
love without distinctions. It is even hard to find ethical principles
linking individuals with groups. In the organizational patterns in
Western society, public service, in the sense of fulfilling obligations
toward a group, is a clearly defined social norm. In Chinese tradi-
tional society, however, there is no such norm. Nowadays we
sometimes use the word zhong (loyalty) to convey this meaning,
but the meaning of the word zhong as given in the Analects is quite
different. In the sentence "When acting on another's behalf,
shouldn't you always be loyal?" the word loyal really means "to be
sincere with others"; it is another way of indicating inner emo-
tions, of saying something is heartfelt.
In the Analects, Zizhang asked Confucius his opinion of the min-
ister Ziwen: "In his public life he was made prime minister three
times, and yet on none of these occasions did he show any sign of
elation. Three times he was dismissed from office, and on none of
these occasions did he show any sign of resentment. He was al-
ways careful, when giving up office, to explain to his successor the
line of policy which the government had been pursuing under his
administration. Now, what do you think of him?" Confucius an-
swered, "He was zhong (loyal)."lo In this passage, zhong means
something close to loyalty to one's duty, but it does not mean loy-
alty to an organization. As a matter of fact, in the Analects, zhong is

10. Ibid., Book S' chap. 18.

 Morality of Personal Relationships 77

not even a principle of the relationship between a ruler and his

officials. There, the principle linking ruler and official is yi (righ-
teousness, correctness). As Confucius said, A gentleman who takes
II

office tries to carry out what he thinks to be right. II The concept

II

of the "loyal official" came later. Furthermore, loyalty to the ruler

is itself not an ethical principle joining the individual to an organi-
zation but, rather, signifies a personal relationship between ruler
and officials.
This absence of an organizational morality can be seen even more
clearly in the conflict between the public and the private spheres.
Though responsible for governing the empire, the emperor still
Ilad first to fulfill the obligations of his personal relationships. Ac-
cording to Mencius,

Tao Ying asked, "When Shun was emperor and Gaoyao was the
judge, if Shun's father had killed a man, what should have hap-
pened?"
Mencius said, "Gaoyao would have arrested him."
"In that case, would Shun not have tried to stop it?"
"How could Shun have stopped it? Gaoyao would have had the
authority to deal with the matter."
"Then what would Shun have done?"
"Shun would have regarded abandoning the empire as throwing
away a worn-out shoe. He would have secretly carried the old man
on his back and fled to the edge of the sea. He would have lived
there all his life happily and forgotten all about the empire." 12

All this is to say that, although Shun was the emperor, he was still
unable to treat his father as he would any other subject. Mencius's
answer is an ideal solution to the conflict between the public and
the private. Shun tried to serve two goals, but could not. Mencius
thought of a way to escape the law by Shun's living in a remote
place by the sea.
Mencius was able to give this answer because this example was
fictitious. However, in another place, Mencius dealt with a prob-
lem in a way that demonstrates even more clearly the absence of
universalism in Chinese moral standards.

11. Ibid., Book 18, chap. 7.

12. The Works of Mencius, Book 7, chap. 35. The Works of Mencius, included among
the four great books of Confucian learning, is a compilation of writings and dia-
logues attributed to Mencius.
78 Morality of Personal Relationships

Wan Zhang said, "Xiang was daily engaged in plotting against

Shun's life. When Shun became the emperor, why did he only ban-
ish his brother?"
Mencius said, "He enfeoffed him; some only called it banish-
ment."
Wan Zhang said, "Shun banished Gonggong to Youzhou, Huan-
dou to Mount Chong, Sanmiao to Sanwei, and Gun to Mount Yu,
where he died. When these four culprits were punished, the people
in the Empire bowed to the will of Shun, because it was the punish-
ment of the wicked. Xiang was the most wicked of them all; yet he
was enfeoffed in Youbi. What wrong had the people of Youbi done?
Is that the way a benevolent man behaves? Others he punished, but
when it came to his own brother, he enfeoffed him."
Mencius replied, A benevolent man neither harbors anger nor
/I

nurses resentment against a brother. All he does is to love him. Be-

cause he loves him, he wishes him to have rank. Because he loves
him, he wishes him to be rich. To enfeoff him in Youbi was to enrich
him and let him have rank. If as emperor he had allowed his brother
to remain a common man, could that be described as loving him?" 13

A society with a differential mode of association is composed of

webs woven out of countless personal relationships. To each knot
in these webs is attached a specific ethical principle. For this rea-
son, the traditional moral system was incapable of producing a
comprehensive moral concept. Therefore, all the standards of value
in this system were incapable of transcending the differential per-
sonal relationships of the Chinese social structure.
The degree to which Chinese ethics and laws expand and con-
tract depend on a particular context and how one fits into that con-
text. I have heard quite a few friends denounce corruption, but
when their own fathers stole from the public, they not only did
not denounce them but even covered up the theft. Moreover,
some went so far as to ask their fathers for some of the money
made off the graft, even while denouncing corruption in others.
When they themselves become corrupt, they can still find comfort
in their "capabilities." In a society characterized by a differential
mode of association, this kind of thinking is not contradictory. In
such a society, general standards have no utility. The first thing to
do is to understand the specific context: Who is the important fig-
ure, and what kind of relationship is appropriate with that figure?

13. Ibid., Book 5, Part I, chap. 3.

 Morality of Personal Relationships 79

Only then can one decide the ethical standards to be applied in

that context.
In a society based on a Western organizational mode of associa-
tion, people in the same organizations apply universal moral prin-
ciples to themselves and so regard each other as equals. This kind
of thinking, however, is exactly what Mendus most opposed. He
said, "That things are unequal is part of their nature.... If you
reduce them to the same level, it will only bring confusion to the
empire." 14 Motzu's idea about universal love is exactly opposite to
the Confucian idea of differential human relationships. It is for this
reason that Mendus accused Motzu of being both fatherless and
rulerless. 15

14· Ibid., Book 3, chap. 4.

15. Motzu was the founder of an important school of Chinese philosophy that
is roughly a contemporary of Confucianism and was one of the contending schools
of thought during the Warring States period (480-221 B.C.). One of the principal
ideas he emphasized was an all-embracing love.