Did Confucianism play a role is Chinese stagnation?

[Mitchell Hundred]

I've heard it argued that the complacency that results from Confucian thought resulted in China to embrace laissez-fair attitude with regards to development. This often positioned against the "protestant-work" ethic that apparently drove industrialization.

Is there any truth to this thought?

 

[Qin36]

I've always had doubts about the idea that confucianism stagnated China. The two Chinese dynasties that had the largest number of inventions and technological developments, the Han and the Song, were both heavily confucian.

The Song dynasty especially is famous for being probably the most inventive of all Chinese dynasties, some even say they were on the verge of an industrial revolution, but they were heavily confucian.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_of_the_Han_dynasty

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_of_the_Song_dynasty

 

[Skallagrim]

I'll quote my observations from a recent thread (leaving out the non-relevant bits of my lengthy post over there):

We all know (and most of us are irritated by) the oft-heard story that Chinese culture was stagnant, frozen, and generally devoid of innovation by the time the Europeans exploded outward into the world. Dynamic Europe, until c. 1500 or so generally less developed than China, rapidly overtook stagnant China and the rest is, as they say, history. That this last bit happened is not disputed (yes, scientifically and technolgically, Europe did evidently overtake China). The problem is that people then back-project this state of affairs unto Chinese history, and conclude that China was inherently stagnant and unable to develop. Quite respectable historians have put forward this theory, telling us at great lenghth that the Confucian mindset (its focus on balance and order) inherently causes stagnation. They conclude that China was doomed to stagnate.

I happen to disagree with that assumption. The aforementioned cycle of "challenge and response", I believe, entails that cultures are often victims of their own success. If everthing is in order, stagnation follows. But stagnation itself is a weakness, which leads to problems (challenges) which then demand a dynamic response (or they kill you, if you fail to respond). China has seen periods of great challenges (war, fragmentation, upheavals of all sorts), all of which were overcome (by innovation and transformation), and led to subsequent periods of order (unification, peace, properity), all of which lead (in the long term) to stagnation. This happens to all cultures, everywhere, and is not somehow unique to China. Europeans simply ran into a China that was at the apogee of unified period, clearly going into stagnation. And so, European historians painted all of Chinese history in the light of that view.

I daresay that the Chinese had very bad luck in OTL. The Europeans happened to befall them at a very inconvenient time.

...That said, I'll be the very last person to claim that ideologies do not influence reality. On the contrary: I think ideas shape history to a great extent. But the thing is: ideas evolve. They change over time. So there have been forms and interpretations of Confucianism that contributed to an unyielding, 'stagnant' attitude in government and cultural mindset. Sure. There have even been times when such interpretations were dominant. But to claim that Confucianism is or ever has been inherently thus... strikes me as preposterous. On balance, China is no more or less stagnant or dynamic than any other culture. It's all a matter of when you take your 'snap-shot' of any culture. if you base your image of Roman culture on 150 BC, you'll be left with a totally different notion of what Roman culture is like than if you take your snap-shot in 400 AD during the reign of Honorius. The same hold true everywhere.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

One can probably find stronger reasons for 'stagnation' in the social complications, economics, and politics of the Manchu dynasty rule. particularly in the 19th Century.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

what stagnation? until about 1850 China was clearly in the lead economically

 

[kholieken]

Not having Industries Revolution is not stagnation. IR is unique event that only happens once, we don't know what causing it

 

[A Repentant Heretic]

I would blame Qing politics and corruption more than the Confucianism itself.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I'd argue China's stagnation and Confucianism, while correlated, aren't causal. Rather, both reflect the (relatively) non-competitive political and economic position China was in as a result of their compact and super-lucky geography. Without that stability created by having no real competitors, China coulden't have afford to become as bureaucratized as it did, as the Merchant and Warrior class diden't have to be given the same level of social privlages and produce the same level of competition as they did in, say, Europe since the external military threat was basically nil and China was so large and had access to so many kind of raw materials and cheap labor that there wasen't the wolf of competition nipping at their metaphorical heals. There just wasen't the same select pressures of "Adapt or Die" in a society with the richest farmland in the world (Basically), dense jungles to the south, the Gobi Desert and Siberia to the north and east, and relatively open ocean to the east as a big peninsula made up of other peninsulas where the residents of those penninsulas aren't part of the same political unit as you.

 

[snerfuplz]

Not having Industries Revolution is not stagnation. IR is unique event that only happens once, we don't know what causing it

This here is my answer as well. In my view, Europe wasn't able to seriously challenge native supremacy in India and China until after industrialization was well underway

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Explain still Confucian China, then.

 

[Pipcard]

I've heard it argued that the complacency that results from Confucian thought resulted in China to embrace laissez-fair attitude with regards to development. This often positioned against the "protestant-work" ethic that apparently drove industrialization.

Is there any truth to this thought?

This reminds me of someone's essay trying to blame the stagnation of Japan's tech industry on Confucianism and them not being "Westernized" enough, which I posted on r/badhistory.

 

[Hegemon]

I’d like to point out, as a few have stated here already, that Confucianism is not unchanging. Neo-Confucian ideas during the Southern Song were revolutionary in changing how people saw the world, as Confucianism imported a lot of Buddhist ideals, like contemplation of truth and virtue, respect of life, and even proto-humanist ideas like equality of spirit. It’s fascinating to think of what Confucianism could’ve evolved into in an alternate world.

Song was also making progress in opening up to foreign trade, building China’s first standing navy and one of the greatest in the world at that. I believe that, given some time, Song could’ve become a greater mercantile power than it was. As it was, Yuan conquest interrupted this development somewhat, and Ming completely destroyed naval tradition and drastically curtailed foreign trade.

This reminds me of someone's essay trying to blame the stagnation of Japan's tech industry on Confucianism and them not being "Westernized" enough, which I posted on r/badhistory.

Yes, so bad that Japan underwent one of the fastest about-faces technologically in all time, going from a pathetic, backwards island to a giant capable of occupying the entire southeast of Asia, including the colonies of the French and English, two great powers, occupied nearly half of China, and gave America one of the bloodiest noses its ever gotten from a foreign power. All while desperately short of food and manpower. I mean, I’m not an expert here, but I’m pretty sure you need some tech to pull this off. I agree, this essay better have some strong evidence to back it up.

Edit: read the essay in more detail. Still makes no sense that Japan could at once be so open to modernization and then suddenly decide to stop modernizing due to values that they set aside or warped centuries ago “just because”.