A few weeks ago I posted a response to a piece from the blog Western Confucian which quoted Pan Yue, a Chinese environmental protection administrator, arguing that ancient Chinese philosophy is especially good in respecting the natural environment.  I expressed some skepticism at the basic assertion.  It was a hasty effort on my part and, in light of comments from readers, I need to develop the point further.   I am moved to do this today, finally, after being in and out of town over the past couple of weeks, by the big multimedia spread in the NYT today on China’s environmental crisis.

     In my earlier post, I suggested that Confucianism would accept man’s dominance of nature, based on the subordination of animals to social interests in the Analects.   I further stated that, if there were a contradiction between maintaining one’s social duties and the environment, the former would win out over the latter.  If some trees had to be cleared to allow for farming, for example, to feed the family, the family would, by Confucian logic, win out over the trees.

     One of my commenters, JustSomeGuy, pushed back , reminding me that  Confucius had a strong personal  sense of environmental responsibility, as suggested in these two passages from the Analects:

"The Master fished with a line but not with a net; when shooting he did not aim at a resting bird."

"The Master said: ‘To conduct the government of a state of a
thousand chariots there must be religious attention to business and
good faith, economy in expenditure and love of the people, and their
employment on public works at the proper seasons.’"

 I think it is right to make these points, particularly in light of the horrendous air and water pollution that now plagues China.

     Indeed, I think it is true that Confucianism assumes a certain limitation on human dominance of the environment.  While the defense of social duties might be primary to environmental protection at the level of the family, the key problem these days, not just in China but every modern society, is a loss of proportion and balance.  A Confucian might focus criticism on the pursuit of profit.  The problem in China is not families doing what they must to enact duty and ritual; rather the problem is hyper-growth, fueled by coal, and aimed at high profits for Chinese and foreign businesses.  Profit has infected the relationship of man and environment and, ultimately, has undermined the ability of many Chinese people to protect their social relationships (think of all of the health problems that have harmed families as a result of pollution).

    I think my initial skepticism of the assertion that ancient Chinese philosophy is basically green was driven by two impulses: first, it seems too easy a claim.  Of course, in earlier times, before industrial pollution, Chinese and other ancient world-views, assumed that clean water and air would not be threatened.  The trade-offs between human activity and environmental degradation were not as stark, the costs not as high, as they are now. 

        But, secondly, I was also repelled by the source of the argument.  Although I respect Pan Yue and believe that he has done good work in warning about China’s environmental degradation, I am always wary of nationalist uses of Chinese philosophy.  Few things are more harmful to the modern application of ancient Chinese thought than facile nationalist claims of the superiority of Chinese traditions.  Such efforts are often designed to bolster the legitimacy of current power holders and, thus, distort philosophy in the interest of political authority.  Confucianism and Taoism both hold within them strong critiques of authoritarian abuses of power, topics that defenders of the political status quo do not want to recognize.  But, even though we have to be on the lookout for such distortions, I was too quick in rejecting Pan’s main point.

     In sum, then, I agree that there is a basic greenness at the heart of Confucianism.  If current leaders in China took Confucianism seriously (i.e. as something more than a legitimating device for their continued hold on power) they would recognize that the drive for profit is ruining their country, and the allure of vanity (all those Chinese consumers buying all those cars and things) and fetishism of commodities (a good, old Marxist idea!), are impelling the destruction of their environment.

    For more on this issue, see this piece by Mary Evelyn Tucker, as suggested by JustSomeGuy.