Why Do Americans Find Daoism/Zhuangism So Compelling as a Way of Life (and Not Confucianism)?

I’ve been teaching East Asian Philosophy this semester, and have noticed something that I’ve seen in many semesters past.  For the most part, students dislike Confucianism, but love Daoism (especially Zhuangzi).  I’ve always found this curious.  I first noticed this as an undergraduate at the University of Maryland in my first exposure to early Chinese philosophy (a story to which I’ll return in a moment).

The first early Chinese work I ever read was the Analects (I don’t remember which translation it was, probably D.C. Lau).  Early in my undergrad years, I worked at a bookstore in my hometown, and was assigned to the Religion section, which I restocked and maintained.  One of the things I loved about working at the store was that I discovered so many new books there, and during my breaks (or slow times in the store), I had the opportunity to read the books I was stocking.  I picked up a copy of the Analects on a lunch break once, thinking it looked interesting and worth a try.  I ended up being fascinated with it, and read the entirety of it after my shift ended that day.  I was drawn to the Analects not as a scholar (which I really wasn’t at that point–I was just a kid who liked eclectic reading), but as a human being.  Something really resonated with me in the message of the Analects.  With Confucius and his students, it felt to me like I had discovered people who truly “got it”.  It was an epiphany–I had discovered something true, vital, and profound.  The only other text I read that had a similar effect was a few years later when I discovered the Bhagavad Gita.  In time, I came to appreciate Zhuangzi as well.

Lots of college students have such “epiphanies”.  I’d even venture to say it’s part of the natural experience of being a person of college age.  And it’s part of the value of learning and being in school (or at least around books) at that age.  All of us (or most of us at least) have the experience of discovering the books that we think sum up the highest ideals, inspire us, and inform our lives moving forward.  For me, the Analects was one of these books.  What I find so interesting and strange, though, is that it seems not to be so for the vast majority of the students I have taught over the years, no matter how passionately I advocate its ideals.  Early Confucianism in general, whether the AnalectsMencius, or Xunzi, tends to leave my students cold.

As I mentioned above, I first encountered this tendency to resist Confucianism when I myself was an undergraduate.  I began taking classes in Mandarin Chinese (with my now wife Shubhalaxmi, who provided the illustrations for my recent book “Understanding Asian Philosophy” by the way–check them out!), and in Chinese culture and literature.  It was in part my interest in the Analects that led me to start taking these classes.  In one of my classes on early Chinese literature, we covered the classic philosophical texts, from the Analects through Han Feizi, and also the Shiji.  It was a great class.  I was dismayed, however, when we read the Analects and I turned out to be the only person in class who actually liked it!  Others thought it was “dry”, “boring”, “tedious”, or otherwise just bad.  When we came to the Zhuangzi, however, it was completely the reverse!  Everyone in the class loved it, and I know that a number of those students had a similar “epiphany” with the Zhuangzi that I had with the Analects a couple of years before.

I spoke to one of my Chinese language teachers about this, explaining to her that I loved the Analects, but that my classmates hated it, and most of them liked Zhuangzi.  I remember clearly her response–she had the same experience I now have in my years of teaching these texts.  She said something like: 美國人都喜歡莊子,不知道為什麼 (“Americans really like Zhuangzi–I don’t know why”).  I find myself today wondering the same thing–why are American young people so enamored with the Zhuangzi, and why do they dislike Confucianism so much?

This is especially interesting/baffling because if we look at scholarship in Chinese philosophy, the situation seems the other way around.  There is much more scholarship on Confucianism within philosophy than on anything Daoist, including Zhuangzi.  But, as always, approaching a text as a scholar and approaching it for inspiration for living are two different things.  One generally does not see Confucianism reading groups and people who cite the Analects or Xunzi as their “philosophy of life” out in the general American public.  I’ve seen lots of people who hold the Daodejing in this light, however.  Even the well known “new age guru” Wayne Dyer has a “translation” of Daodejing, and books on Daoism (and Buddhism) sell way better in the general market than books on Confucianism.  Anyone working at a bookstore (as I did) can tell you that.

So while study of Confucianism seems to be thriving as a scholarly pursuit in the USA, it falls completely flat as inspiration for living, which after all was its original intention.  It is hard to find others out there in the general American public who were as inspired as I was by the Confucian vision.  Why, I wonder, is this?  What is it about Confucianism as lived practice that Americans find so distasteful?  And what is it about Daodejing and Zhuangzi that they find so inviting?  And why then was it that I, who am as culturally American as any other of my fellow citizens, was drawn so strongly to Confucianism rather than Daoism?  And finally, perhaps a related question:  what would make Americans interested in Confucianism, if anything?

Many questions, and still no answers.

9 responses to “Why Do Americans Find Daoism/Zhuangism So Compelling as a Way of Life (and Not Confucianism)?

  1. Hi Alexus

    You are being a little coy in not sharing your own thoughts on this question.
    I have noticed the same thing in my intro class and I’d be interested in your opinion.

    In my experience, it is not just that most students prefer Zhuangzi to Confucius; they also prefer a reading that takes dao as some sort of ineffable natural force field that can be “attuned” to by those who truly get it or by practicing mediation and the like and that such attuning requires a rejection or at least a breakdown of the conceptual categories that form the basis of our language and education. (Think Alan Watts not Chad Hansen or Wang Bo.) My current favourite theory to explain this is not very original. I just think it is “new age”ism, i.e. the desperate search to fill the cultural gap left by the abandonment of organised religion by projecting spiritual needs onto any suitable esoteric canvas. With an absent father we hope the forest will be kind to us if we just surrender to its mystery. What is a little surprising is that this continues through the generations. I doubt that many of my students have had a religious upbringing that they have rejected or even that their parents had one – I’m teaching in New Zealand not the USA! Are the core concepts of monotheistic paternalistic religion so well-embedded in our culture? I suppose the answer is yes.

    By contrast, the Confucian vision is intelligible, pragmatic and human-oriented. Much of it is common sense and requires hard work and acceptance of the social world rather than rejection and surrender. It all seems very unsatisfyingly secular – to those looking for something “more”. Likewise, a reading of Zhuangzi as deeply pessimistic about the human condition, curious and questioning but ultimately just laughing at any prescription for improving our lives – well, that is a bit too dark for most.

    Jeremy

  2. I’m not sure if my intuition is right or not, but Zhuangzi, unless read carefully, seems to offer a license to say and write “nonsenses.” And it seems that is how introductory students view philosophy, as a discipline where there are no right or wrong answers and you can merely state your opinion any way you wish. Confucius doesn’t allow you such “freedom.”

    This posting of yours oddly reminds me of the “Sokal Affair,” in the sense that no one wants to do the hard academic work anymore, but would like a standpoint from which to state a lot of opinions free from criticism. I think Zhuangzi offers that for many. Of course, I would argue that’s a wrong reading of Zhuangzi.

    vu~

  3. Hi Jeremy-
    Yes you’re right- I avoided giving my own view, mainly because I’m unsure. My views on this have changed throughout the years. At first I thought it had something to do with the desire for freedom that comes with youth, and the Zhuangzi really seems more friendly to that than does Confucianism. I also think there’s something to your claim about “new age” and the desire for replacement of religiosity.

    I think there also be something about the “duty” aspect of Confucianism that turns students off. It may also have something to do with the perceived focus on individuality in the Zhuangzi (an idea which Americans notoriously love), versus a focus on community and responsibility in the Analects and other Confucian texts. I think I’m going to start taking polls of my students to find out which of the texts we study are their favorites and why. I think we might learn a lot from enough of this feedback.

    Vu-
    How’s it going man! Good to hear from you!

    I think you’re on to something there. The Daodejing and Zhuangzi can be kind of like philosophical Rorschach tests, because the language can be so vague and suggestive, and difficult to interpret. Zhuangzi is one of those things about which a little bit of knowledge might be worse than none at all, because one really has to do the hard work to properly understand what’s going on in it.

  4. I’ve taught the Analects and the Daodejing, but not Zhuangzi. But it was a while back, and I’m having a hard time calling up specific memories relevant to the question. That’s a shame, because I taught both to highly secular groups of students and to groups who were agreed that Noah put animals on a boat. (I do remember that the Southern Baptists found it particularly scandalous that Confucius said one should not have friends inferior to oneself.) In general I’m inclined to agree with Alexus and vu~. Another problem with Confucius might be that much of it seems uninteresting in the sense that it is (a) platitudinous, or (b) way wrong, or (c) comments about people we can’t know.

  5. Interesting topic Alexus. For me it was the Daodejing that spoke to me. Although I didn’t read the Confucian texts until years later, everything I read about Confucianism in the early days was critical, from a “Daoist” perspective, and it seemed too authoritarian, too preachy. Now that I’ve read more of the secondary literature (in English) it seems somewhat less so, but still doesn’t speak to me as much. This may be because of my metaethical views (anti-realist, relativist, fictionalist). Like Confucius, however, I do have a love of learning.😉

  6. Interesting read. I’ve studied courses in Chinese history and culture, and Chinese literature, this term and for the first time came in closer contact with confucianism and daoism. I tended to find daoism more interesting, but also more vague. However, remember when I first read texts about “filial piety”, as is something central within confucianism, it made a peculiar impression on me. I will have reason to look deeper into both these philosophies in my studies following weeks, which I look forward to!

  7. I wonder how much of this has to do with age as opposed to country of origin. The older one gets, and especially if one raises kids, the old Confucian values of moral practice, devotion to the local, and discipline as a way of life start to make more sense. College students understandably prefer to “live in the moment” and reject stuffy old rules and values. Maybe it’s because of my own sympathy with Confucius, but my students seem to like him and Daoism roughly equally by my lights.

  8. As a college student and follower of Zhuangzi, I can say that the “appeal” of the philosophy/religion comes not from such fancies as a pass for nonsense, new ageism, or anything else. Also, I see the opposite of what this post says; my peers don’t see the Zhuangzi (or any other eastern philosophy) as enlightening, nor do they even get inspired by its ideas. Maybe this contrast that the post highlights comes from different perspectives, rather than the philosophies themselves, i.e. teacher-viewing-student and student-viewing-student. Whatever the case, I’m fairly certain those Zhuangzi-loving students to whom you refer do not really, wholeheartedly believe its teachings, unlike me, as I continue to write about it so that others may be able TO wholeheartedly believe it. If these questions still bug you, I think some answers (or at least insights) to your questions can be had from my posts.

  9. Hello Alexus,
    I find your article interesting because I am an American (among other nationalities) and was not a college student for very long – yet I too was drawn to Taoism (sorry, I prefer the old spelling) rather than Confucianism. But my path was different and did not go by way of Chuang Tzu. I came to Taoism on my own by my own ponderings of metaphysics and epistemology. Wu, and the Taijitu, for me, are “it” – my epiphany. They symbolize my understanding of this physical reality but that’s it. I derive no moral guidelines from Lao Tzu or anyone else – and though I can see the ‘permissive’ aspect of it, I feel it is lacking a little bit of the rigor of Confucius.
    To me, Confucius was Karate – square, hard, clean-cut and right-angled. Taoism was Tai Chi – circular, soft, shifting and flowing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s