In my post on "Cherish the Young," I asserted that "child-rearing is central to the Confucian project of creating and reproducing ren – 仁 – "humanity" or "humaneness" or "benevolence," the highest moral accomplishment." Commenter Bill Haines (well known to readers of Warp, Weft and Way) rightfully presses back and asks for more textual support, especially for my characterization of the centrality of child-rearing. He goes on:
My impression is that the classic texts hardly mention child-rearing. That’s a huge and striking difference between early Confucian and, say, early Greek ethics. I find it not just troubling but also surprising, not least because one might expect Confucius and Mencius to find the norms of childrearing a helpful model in some respects for norms of rulership (as Mencius does with cherishing).
He is right, of course. There is not a whole lot on child-rearing in the Analects of Menicus, not directly, at least. But there is something. And I want to draw out some key passages to consider the extent to which we might be able to see child-rearing as "central" (i.e. not simply "a part of" or even "important to" the Confucian project of ren). This will have to be preliminary (I have already taken up too much of my class preparation time! And it is, after all, only a blog post), but I hope it will start a fruitful exchange of views.
Let's go to Analects 17.21 (Hinton has it as 17.20). Here Confucius reasserts the importance of observing the three year period of mourning after a parent dies. The last couple of lines read, in Ivanhoe's and Van Norden's translation:
A child is completely dependent upon the care of his parents for the first three years of his life – this is why the three-year mourning period is the common practice throughout the world.
Here's the Chinese (from Chinese Text Project):
子生三年，然後免於父母之懷。夫三年之喪，天下之通喪也
There seems to be a translation issue regarding causality here. Notice how I&V say that "this is why" three years is the common mourning period, which suggests that it is because parents care for children so intensely for three years that children then owe their parents a symbolic three year mourning period in return. Hinton goes with this notion of causality:
A child spends its first three years in the nurturing arms of its parents. That's why the mourning period lasts three years throughout all beneath Heaven.
But Ames and Rosemont do not make quite as strong a connection:
It is only after being tended by his parents for three years that an infant can finally leave their bosom. The ritual of a three-year mourning period for one's parents is practiced throughout the empire.
Even if we take the somewhat weaker parallelism of A&R, I think it is still the case that at least part of the justification for the three year mourning period is the care that parents give to children in their first three years. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is the exclusive justification because I think Confucians want to believe that the practice of mourning, in and of itself, regardless of how a parent behaved earlier, cultivates good moral practice generally.
But the care parents give to children, their child-rearing, figures here and, the case can be made, figures importantly because, a link is made between what is clearly the Confucian virtue most emphasized in the Analects, filial piety, and child-rearing. We should care for our parents precisely because they cared for us when we were young.
Now, Confucius does not say much more about child-rearing. Does this mean it is not important? Or might it mean that child-rearing is such a natural impulse for parents that it is not necessary to discuss it. Children must be taught to take care of their parents, but parents do not have to be taught to take care of their children. They do it instinctively. And we should mourn them extensively because they do it. I realize that this is a conjecture, reading into the text ideas that are not explicitly raised in the text, but it might well be true…
In any event, the many statements on filial devotion are themselves instructions on child-rearing. They are aimed at both parents and children: telling the latter how they should behave toward their parents, but also telling the former how they should raise their children to behave. When should instruction on proper filial behavior begin? Only at fifteen (as per 2.4) or after the child has passed a third birthday and can then be taken from his or her parents bosom (as per 7.20)? Since I am in the midst of raising a teenager, I can say with some conviction that waiting until fifteen to seriously work on a child's moral education is a losing proposition…
Karen Lai makes a similar point, in her Learning from Chinese Philosophies, in regard to 2.6, which seems to be rather ambiguous:
孟武伯問孝。子曰：“父母唯其疾之憂。”
Legge has it: "Meng Wu asked what filial piety was. The Master said, "Parents are anxious lest their children should be sick." A&R go with: "Meng Wubo asked about filial conduct. The Master replied: "Give your mother and father nothing to worry about beyond your physical well-being." Either way it seems the default assumption is that parents do worry about children, and they worry because they are responsible for their up-bringing. From this Lai argues:
It suggests that the onus of fulfilling the requirements of xiao does not fall entirely on the children. Parents have responsibilities as well – perhaps the initial responsibilities – to express and demonstrate to their children the concern and love appropriate to the parent-child relationship (26)
One last thought on the Analects here: to whom is Confucius speaking in 17.9 when he says "little ones" – 小子? He addresses his son in 17.10, so we might think that 17.9 is connected somehow: that Confucius is addressing some collection of people his son's age. We can't know how old they are precisely. Are they fifteen? Twenty? Ten? But this could be an example of Confucius directly addressing children, involving himself in the practice of child-reading by way of his usual moral exhortations: read the Songs, etc.
Mencius, as usual, goes further, and tells us more about child-rearing. In 1A.7 he tells us what good leaders do:
是故明君制民之產，必使仰足以事父母，俯足以畜妻子，樂歲終身飽，凶年免於死亡.
Which Bloom translates as:
Therefore, an enlightened ruler will regulate the people's livelihood so as to ensure that, above, they have enough to serve their parents and, below, they have enough to support their wives and children. In years of prosperity they always have enough to eat; in years of dearth they are able to escape starvation.
Hinton goes with the somewhat more evocative "nurture their wives and children." But what I want to point out here is the implied equivalence: the standard for good rule is the provision of a material basis to enable people to carry out their most important familial duties, of which taking care of children is of the same status as taking care of parents. This "support" is rather basic perhaps, making sure they have enough to eat, but that, too, is a facet of child-rearing.
On the moral education front, as Bill mentions in his comment, Mencius tells us that fathers should not be their sons teachers. Here is 4A.18 with Legge's translation:
公孫丑曰：“君子之不教子，何也？”
孟子曰：“勢不行也。教者必以正；以正不行，繼之以怒；繼之以怒，則反夷矣。‘夫子教我以正，夫子未出於正也。’則是父子相夷也。父子相夷，則惡矣。古者易子而教之。父子之間不責善。責善則離，離則不祥莫大焉。”
Gong Sun Chou said, 'Why is it that the superior man does not himself teach his son?'
Mencius replied, 'The circumstances of the case forbid its being done. The teacher must inculcate what is correct. When he inculcates what is correct, and his lessons are not practised, he follows them up with being angry. When he follows them up with being angry, then, contrary to what should be, he is offended with his son. At the same time, the pupil says, 'My master inculcates on me what is correct, and he himself does not proceed in a correct path." The result of this is, that father and son are offended with each other. When father and son come to be offended with each other, the case is evil. The ancients exchanged sons, and one taught the son of another. Between father and son, there should be no reproving admonitions to what is good. Such reproofs lead to alienation, and than alienation there is nothing more inauspicious.'
So, at some point (after three years old?) parents must seek out other noble-minded people to take charge of their children's moral education so as to avoid weakening the parent-child bond. And that bond, in the words of Master Jing in 2B2,is based upon "kindness" (or "affection" or "love" or "kindenss," depending on translation…). And this is reciprocal: children should feel all of these toward parents, but parents should also feel this way toward children. Indeed, parental love is so strong, and can lead to parents taking so much time caring for their children, that Mencius warns against allowing this natural affection and care to obstruct filial duties. In 4B30 he says: "To be fond of goods and property and partial to one's wife and children and not concern oneself with the nurture of one's father and mother – this is the third form of unfiliality." (Bloom):
好貨財，私妻子，不顧父母之養，三不孝也
In other words, the natural propensity to focus on child-rearing could actually be a problem in terms of carrying out other obligations.
In sum, then, I think we can say that there is a textual basis for child-rearing being an important facet of Confucianism. And I think I would still stand by the notion that it is "central" to the Confucian project of ren, because of its close ties, both positive and negative, to filial duty.
I'll stop there and let everyone digest. And I look forward to learning from comments and criticisms.
The Useless Tree 
Leave a comment