In today’s Overseas Edition of the People’s Daily, Tian Chenshan, a professor at the University of Hawai’i, has a commentary that calls for revision of Confucianism in light of post-modern sensibilities:

To have a post-modernist vision, an extended system is needed. Such
extension requires Confucian philosophy not to limit itself in
historical language and past questions. Its revival today should by no
means a simple repeat of history or ancient structure. Obsolete
mentality, conservatism and failure to cope with present-day realities
will only bring the studies nowhere. A bright future of today’s
Confucian philosophy only lies in the re-interpretation of its profound
philosophical, ideological and cultural significance with modern
language and bring its essence into play by modern discourse so as to
lend it the capability of explaining and solving practical questions
and providing a useful option for mankind to understand their way ahead. 

    The translation of the article (I am imagining Tian wrote it originally in Chinese) is rather rough, and the the ideas are not made sufficiently specific, but this is something I think about a lot.  Let me add two points to Tian’s discussion.

    But, first, what do we mean by "postmodern."  A simple definition might be this: it is the effort to continue to do philosophy, or something like it, after the failure of modernism, that failure being the collapse of belief in universal assertions of truth and meaning.  Postmodernists do not reject the ideas of truth and meaning, but understand them as plural and contingent and dynamic.  Thus, the only kinds of assertions of truth and meaning we might accept are those that are local and specific and fragile.  We could say more on this, but let that suffice for now.

    If that is a start on a definition of postmodernism (and my favorite source for all of this is David Harvey’s, The Condition of Postmodernity – it satisfies my desire for a political economy context around the philosophical controversies), then I would make these two points:

   1.  A postmodern Confucianism seeks "immanent" meaning, and avoids the urge to assert "transcendent" meaning.  I am taking this from Prof. Tian’s U of Hawai’i colleague, Roger Ames, who, in his path-breaking book with David Hall – Thinking Through Confucius – lays the theoretical groundwork for a postmodern Confucianism.  Hall and Ames argue that Confucianism has always had an "immanntal" notion of the cosmos, though it has been prone to being rigidified into a universal moral code.  Here are a couple of passages from Hall and Ames that get at this idea:

Perhaps the most far-reaching of the uncommon assumptions underlying a coherent explication of the thinking of Confucius is that which precludes the existence of any transcendent being or principles.  This is the presumption of radical immanence. (12)

…Thus in place of a consideration of the essential nature of abstract moral virtues, the Confucian is more concerned with an explication of the activities of specific persons in particular contexts. (15).

    Confucian moral judgments are not universal and transcendent.  There are no singular "rules" that apply to all "cases" of an ethical problem.  Each judgment must be built from the ground up, in consideration of each particular person and each specific act involved.  Again, Confucianism can harden into a set of abstract rules that govern all cases, but that, Hall and Ames are suggesting, is against the original sensibility of Confucius himself.  The immanence of early Confucian thought pushes against transcendentalism and, thus, resonates with postmodern orientations.

    2.  In its "radical immanence," a postmodern Confucianism might work best as an oppositional political stance, as opposed to an official ideology of the state.  States are, by definition, modernist institutions.  State leaders make claims to universal right and duty, and try to impose those claims over identified populations within a given territory.  State-making and state-managing are the ultimate modernist projects.  Confucianism has, at various times and in various ways, been linked to state-centered modernization.  The current revival of Confucianism, under the auspices of the party-state, can be seen as a new form of this familiar modernist move.

    A postmodern Confucianism, by contrast, would reject the possibility of state-centric morality; and, as such, it could be used by intellectuals and social forces outside of the state to defend particular individuals in their struggle against administrative corruption.  I find Mencius especially helpful along these lines.  He provides a great deal of material for  critiques of centralized authoritarianism and growing social inequality. 

    Tian, writing in the official organ of party-state power, might not want to acknowledge the oppositional potential of postmodern Confucianism, but it seems obvious to me that the "radical immanence" of Confucian thought can be wielded as an ideational tool against the state.