I read once that the philoshophy of Confusus lead to the Chinese instituting civil sevice exams and the civil service exams lead to the stiltification of China. Is this true? If so, why whould the philoshophy of Confusus lead to civil service exams?
You could be confused about that. 
My dim understanding is that during the Han dynasty, Civil Service Exams were established based on Confucianism. I think that if some other system were in vogue, then there would have been exams based on that.
Well they certainly were not based on Taoism. I can’t even imagine what the questions would be.
Confucius believed two key things:
- People should know their roles.
- People should be able to do their jobs (roles) well.
Civil service tests make sure you can do your job well. As for the stultifcation of China, I’m not sure if thats what caused it. They were pretty backwards in so many ways that I think its impossible to pinpoint one major reason.
Examiner: What is the tao?
Applicant: Tao.
Examiner: WRONG! The tao which can be named is not the tao.
Applicant: D’oh!
Examiner: Next!
Everyone fails. All are equal in the Tao.
Good one micco!
Although, the sage cultivates uselessness.
Given my experience with civil servants, perhaps they did pass a taoist test for uselessness…
<nitpick>The bureaucracy was started in the Han dynasty with Confucianism as the state ideology, but the civil service exam wasn’t formally instituted until the Tang dynasty (ca. AD 600-900).</nitpick>
Pretty backwards??!! :eek: Until Europe started to pull ahead (16-1700’s), the standard of living & level of technological understanding was higher in China. The mystery may be why the West pulled ahead. But some people do blame Confucianism for discouraging innovation & economic development: Confucian scholar-officials had the prestige, so when merchants got rich, instead of investing in R & D & bigger business, they bought their way (or their sons’ way) into the bureaucracy. And on the other side, the gummint interfered in the economy, so the businessmen had less scope for development.
Short answer: nobody knows. (or, um, those who speak, don’t know) :rolleyes:
Holy Cow, I had no idea The Rock was such a deeply philosophical guy!
but I wonder…did Confucius ever use the word jabronie?
phartizan has already covered most of this. I would reinforce that the Chinese were ahead of the West by just about any standard of measurement and scientific accomplishment until around 1700.
Coincidentally enough, I’ve read a PhD dissertation on this topic earlier in the year. IIRC, in a nutshell, it comes down to the rule of law and private ownership of economic assets. The lack of commercial law and protection stifled innovation. (Actually, I’ll email the author and try get a better soundbite.)
In plain English, Confucianism came hand in hand with a collective responsibility system that stifled risk taking and innovation. China, completely self sufficient and effectively isolated from the industrializing West, was thus not driven to change. In fact, tended to crack down on change whenever the status quo was threatened.
The following are some excerpts from an economics PhD thesis: “the judicial system and societal control were reinforced by a mutual responsibility system known as baojia under which community headmen were required to enforce local discipline and as an aside, tax collection. This was not a popular role to be assigned since under the system, all members of a community were held responsible for the behaviour of individual members and could therefore be held liable and penalised for their actions.”
In a broader context: “Many societies over the ages have seen periodic bursts of economic growth which have tended to run concomitant with the development of new technologies and/or production processes supported by the emergence of institutions supportive of private enterprise stemming from more benign or at least less intrusive government. China, from time to time exhibited some or all of these traits but it would appear that whenever the resultant changes suggested the possibility of social upheaval, a clampdown or reversal of policy was the norm. As Landes describes it in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”, China was a ¡°culturally and intellectually homeostatic society: that is, it could live with a little change (indeed, could not possibly stifle all change); but as soon as this change threatened the status quo, the state would step in and restore order.¡± Until the 15th Century, the social order could accommodate and harness technological progress reasonably comfortably. However, the deeper and more far reaching changes implied by a transition to industrial society were more than the elite could stomach or manage and the country accordingly turned in on itself."
Hope this answers your question.
China Guy put it very well.
but I forgot to mention there’s an older explanation that’s been mostly discounted but that may be floating around: that while the Chinese in general weren’t very good at abstract thought, the Confucians in particular were more interested in moral development than other philosophical speculation, and also that they were bookish types who looked down on people who work with their hands.
The OP didn’t say how familiar he is with Confucianism. The basis of Confucianism is a hierarchy of relationships and that decisions should be based on this hierarchy. So the duties stemming from the relationship of subject to emperor outweigh those of son to father and both those relationships take precedence over the friend to friend relationship. I always imagined the civil service exams as a series of logic tests. Mr Pu works for the government, but his friend Mr. Hu needs assistance… yadda yadda. Kinda like the LSAT, just a hoop to jump through. I’d also point out that Neo-Confucianism was all the rage in the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, which was a very stable society but did seem to freeze or at least greatly slow Japanese progress for a couple hundred years. China Guy and phartizan are definitely taking you in the right direction, IMHO.
Actually, more the application of Confucian moral principles. The most exams also often included writing poetry & the style of the essays was very important.
In other words, the exams weren’t all that practical, although you might want a moral bureaucracy…who were cultured. It’s all pretty idealistic: the bureaucracy was pretty corrupt; salaries were low, so the b’crats & their underlings ended up using their political power to milk the public for what they could get. And happily accepted bribes from bizmen and anyone else who gave.
One other thing rarely brought up is that the literacy rate for China was really low, something like 1% a few hundred years ago. After all, it’s an picturegraph language designed to be written on pieces of bamboo. Most of the literarati were those studying for (and hopefully passing) the civil service exams. A lack of literacy will certainly hinder communication and progress.
Welcome to the SCMB phartizan and Lao Tsu. Perhaps we will start seeing some interesting and challenging China related debates.
China Guy, are you sure about that? I know it makes sense, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (no cite, natch) that despite the difficulty, the level of literacy in China in the Qing dynasty actually compared pretty well with Europe’s.
<nitpick>Please don’t say “pictographic”; it started out that way, but it became 90% phonetic/radical (although 2000 years later, the phonetics don’t help much). See The Chinese Language : Fact and Fantasy.</nitpick>
My first welcome! xie4xie4
[ul]
[/ul]My understanding is dim!
(Exits, kowtowing.)
Actually, I don’t have a cite for this. Literacy in the Qing Dynasty was much greater than previously in history, and then you had the modern literature movement start up in the early 1900’s. That said, the peasantry was largely illiterate, and that’s where the population is. So, if anyone out there has a cite I’d be interested.
BTW, bu yong ke qi