[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Talking about that. Actually, it's more of a Confucian thing than anything else. Not really Japanese. You can also see it very often in Korea and to a lesser extent, Singapore. In fact PRC banished Confucian thought simply because it created, in a way, herd mentality. It's quite odd I know, but it's true. Confucius, thanks for ruining our private lives.

Talking about Confucianism in this context is a bit like discussing Communism: Not many people truly understand how the original idea was meant to be applied.

Yes, it's true that Confucius discussed at length how harmony can be achieved by conforming with a well-defined social hierarchy, wherein the ruler obeys divine will just as the peasants obeyed their sovereign, all in accordance with the Way. But that works only on the assumption that the ruler loves and cares for his own followers as he would for his children. In other words, according to Confucius, a just ruler leads for the sake of his people and not his own.

It's important to also understand the historical context in which Confucius came up with his ideas. China during the Spring and Autum Period (春秋時代) was still a feudal society — the concept of a single "high king", an Emperor, had not been invented yet. It was a time of great social hardship as barons and princes engaged in petty warfare and politicking. So, it's not hard to imagine why Chinese philosophers during this period were so obssessed with finding a way to restore harmony. To Confucius, chaos arises when people seek to disrupt the natural order of the world, hence the need for strong government to ensure that peace is maintained.

The harmony that Confucius sought, which translates into the conformity that we see in East Asian societies like Japan, Korea and China today, was originally meant for the benefit of the people, and not their ruler. On hindsight, one could say that Confucius had been naive about the ability of a monarch to rise above his selfish nature. But in this sense, Confucius was no different from Plato:

"In Plato's view, the optimum level of well-being (eudaimonia) among humans cannot result from individuals acting on their own. On the contrary, it requires that everything be centrally organised by people who possess a form of expert knowledge that explains both the correct conception of well-being and the kind of organising that will optimise that well-being collectively."

— The Concept of Political Science (politikê) in Plato and Aristotle, Paul Bullen


Confucius, like Plato, had not intended such a society to be an oppressive one that forces people to live in lock-step with the needs of the sovereign. Moreover, like Plato, Confucius expected political leaders to behave like "philosopher kings", enlightened monarchs who would study the example of their classical ancestors in order to rule virtuously. Like Plato, Confucius placed great value on wisdom and knowledge, and he believed strongly in the need for education to bring about good government.

In turn, the subjects are supposed to support enlightened leadership by striving to excel in their respective stations in life. This was part of what Confucius meant by following the "Way". Unfortunately, over the years, his political philosophy has become a tool for controlling individual aspirations for the sake of the "greater good" — it has become the perversion of an ideal.

With regard to the Japanese, I think their ability to conform is considered part of their national virtue of gaman — to "endure". It's a peculiar form of stoicism that can manifest as great courage and nobility in some situations, or appear like abject slavery in other contexts. Therefore, when looking at Japanese society as outsiders unfamiliar with the Japanese way of life, it's important not to pass judgment without first understanding the roots and contexts that created it.