A rather bleak picture of middle class urban China painted by this Reuters story (hat tip, CDT)

The problem of grown only children having difficulties sustaining
relationships is particularly pronounced among the affluent middle-and
upper-classes who have accumulated enormous wealth from China’s
economic success.

Divorce figures in some cities show about one-third of all divorce cases involve children of the affluent "me" generation.

…..

Marriages among China’s elite often seem to be more about amassing
wealth than nurturing relationships, observers suggest. When a partner
with better prospects comes along, some couples such as Li Lei and Wang
Yang think nothing of breaking up.

It’s a lifestyle that contrasts sharply to that of their parents who viewed marriage as a duty and divorce a shame.

 Nothing new here, really.  We’ve heard this story before: reaping the social and cultural whirlwind of brutally imposed, top-down socialist modernization that powerfully assaulted tradition and opened the way to high speed growth and globalization that now accelerates the materialist processes of modernization…

      What comes to mind here, for me, is not the obvious point, which I have blogged on before, that China is no longer a "Confucian society" (nor a Taoist one at that) but, rather the question: how can Confucianism and Taoism really have any relevance in such a society?  Confucianism presumes a certain social solidarity (or, at least an intention toward such solidarity), at the very least at the level of the family, which is precisely what seems to be missing.  Taoism follows an ascetic sensibility, which seems utterly lacking among the urban middle class. 

     In this context, it is completely understandable why Yu Dan’s approach to Confucius, which has been criticized as overly personalized in a self-help sort of way, commands such popularity.  She is connecting with people where they actually are in contemporary urban China.  They are socially and culturally isolated, more individualized, for better and worse, than Chinese have ever been historically, and she has found a way to bring ancient thought to them.  Good for her.

     But it is not clear to me what is accomplished in so doing (and this is a critique that applies to my own work of applying ancient thought to modern life).  The economic and social forces working toward greater and greater personal alienation and atomization are obviously more powerful than any countervailing effect (which I take to mean an effect that produces some sense of social commitment and Humanity) of a few popularized classics.  The article suggests that urban China is now thoroughly liberal, in economic and social terms though clearly not in political terms.  So, any impact Confucianism and Taoism might have will be marginal at best: they will not transform modernized China but will be transformed by it.

      Then I stop and think and realize.  I keep referring to "urban China" and "middle class."  Perhaps social formations outside the cities and a bit further away from the materialist strivings of the new bourgeoisie could be sites for a more profound impact of ancient Chinese thought.   Is rural China a place where family ties and modest expectations might still be found?  Or is that just a utopian dream?