The other school of though disregards Confucianism as an explanation for the rapid industrialization and economic success of East Asian Economies saying that institution builders reinvented Confucianism, invoking it to win worker loyalties at a low cost. The reality was the emergence of ’strong centralist state regimes’ or authoritarianism in a post-war context. This system of strong state regulatory systems was effective in bringing about a state-induced capitalism. As Petras explains the “the community cooperation and export competitiveness were attributed to Confucianism [retrospectively]….the crucial fact is that this social order came together in a particular historical moment- post revolutionary Asia- was forgotten.16 A complete disregard of the influence of Confucian culture is probably no more appropriate in explaining the success of East Asian economic success than attributing it wholly to Confucianism.
A more appropriate explanation is what Dirlik terms the “circumstantial function of Confucian values”, that is, “Confucianism as a factor that can be a positive force for development when the right set of structural conditions and economic policies are also present.17 This position basically explains the role of Confucianism and what it has offered Asian societies in circumstantial terms such that while Confucianism may not have been conducive to the emergence of capitalism, it may play a positive role once capitalism has been introduced from the outside. This is clearly the case when noting China’s failure or Confucianism as a hindrance to development as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan who capitalism was introduced from the outside. Taiwan has also developed a utilitarian form of Confucianism in the Japanese line and prospered economically unlike the mainland.
From the above examination it can thus be said that Confucianism does have a utilitarian as well as a power function. It can be used to enhance the effectiveness of capitalist states once it has been introduced externally such as Japan has but more often it has been re-invented time and time again by leaders of various East Asian states to provide or give legitimacy to whatever agenda they are pursuing. At the same time Confucian “virtuocracy” and a focus on the symbolic and status elements of the social philosophy can be a hindrance for development as has been the case with China.
Confucianism does have a positive role to play in the development of East Asian states provided is carefully adapted and changed to serve a utilitarian purpose rather than being an end unto itself and stifling social progression and mobility. More accurately, one must examine the particular context in which Confucianism is called upon to determine how effective it is as a social policy or ideology. The key in examining this is to determine the gap between the ideology of Confucianism as called upon by a particular leader, and the reality of its application and use by society. In China the gap is great and has thus meant Confucianism has been a hindrance to modernization. In Japan, the gap is not great and Confucianism serves a constructive role within Japanese social and economic relations. In Korea and Taiwan the gap is not so great but the context in which each economy developed and is ensured means that Confucianism still plays a utilitarian function in each society.
1. Binyan L and Link P., A Great Leap Backward ? (New York Review of Books, Oct 8, 1998)
2. Borthwick M., Pacific Century: The Emergence of Modern Pacific Asia, (Allen & Unwin, 1992).
3. Chan A., Confucianism and Development in East Asia, (Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol.26 No.1, 1996)
4. Clemens W. C., China: Alternative Futures, (Communist and Post-Communist Studies 32, 1999).
5. Deyo F. C., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, (Cornell University Press, 1994).
6. Dirlik A., Confucius in the Borderlands: Global Capitalism and the Reinvention of Confucianism, (Boundary, 2:22:3, 1995, pp 229-273)
7. Godement F., The New Asia Renaissance: From Colonialism to the Post Cold War, (Routledge London & New York, 1997).
8. Lifton R. J., Revolutionary Immortality: Mao Tse-Tung and The Chinese Cultural Revolution, (Pelican Publishing, 1970).
9. Mackerras C., Knight N (eds), Marxism In Asia,(Croom Helm, London & Sydney, 1985).
10. Mendle Wolf, Japan’s Asia Policy: Regional, Security, Global Interests, (Routledge, London, New York, 1995)
11. Petras J., The Americanization of Asia: The Rise and Fall of a Civilization, (Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol.28, No.2, 1998)
12. Pye L. W., Asian Power and Politics: The Cultural Dimensions of Authority, (Harvard University Press, 1985).
13. Yahuda M., The International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 1945-1995, (Routledge, 1998)
14. Zhao B., Consumerism, Confucianism, Communism: Making Sense of China Today, (New Left Review No. 69, April-May, 1997).3