Confucius: Hypocrite or Sage?
Confucius was born in the Chinese state of Lu in 551 BC to a poverty-stricken family whose ancestors once bore aristocratic titles; as Confucius built a name for himself in his teachings, he rose out of that poverty and into an honored middle class position where he garnered respect but no true political power. In spite of his impoverished childhood, Confucius defied odds to obtain a position of esteem amidst commoners, intellectuals, and leaders alike, while sanctimoniously advocating the belief that the poor were unfit for gentlemanly society, effectively marrying them to their low ranking in his social hierarchy (Weiming). Confucius belittled the lower levels of society despite originating from the same poverty. It is recorded: “The Master said: ‘...In my youth, I was poor; therefore, I had to become adept at a variety of lowly skills. Does such versatility befit a gentleman? No, it does not.’ ” (“Confucius” 1334). Confucius not only denigrates his own impoverished upbringing, but he conveys that versatility does not complement gentlemanliness. If, as Confucius suggests, versatility and poverty coincide but versatility and gentlemanliness clash, poverty and gentlemanliness are, by nature, incompatible. Confucius’ claims came despite him rising out of poverty into self-proclaimed gentlemenhood. The sage’s claims assert that those in poverty cannot possibly become gentlemen because the skills held by poorer classes are not befitting of gentlemen. Confucius’ hypocrisy towards the role (or lack thereof) of the impoverished as gentlemen in his proposed social hierarchy furthers his classist obsession with a stratified structure in which the lower classes remain poor under hypothetically benevolent leadership.
Confucius encourages virtuous rulers who would enact policies in favor of universal morality, while upholding his classist narrative that suppresses commoners and peasants in a system of social hierarchy. Confucius’ philosophies promote a regimatic stratification that encourages pacifism and limits mobility in lower levels of the social pyramid despite appearing altruistic under moral governance. This belief purported by Confucius develops a cycle of oppression of the poor under the guise of ethical leadership; by convincing the poor that they should be content with their position in life, nobility can rule peacefully with little mutiny or challenge to current systems. A conversation with a disciple shows Confucius’ subscription to this idea: “Zigong said: ‘ “Poor without servility; rich without arrogance.” How is that?’ The Master said: “Not bad but better still: “Poor, yet cheerful; rich, yet considerate.” ’” (“Confucius” 1330). Confucius’ preaching can be interpreted that, ideally, the poor should be content while the rich, presumably leader figures, act with morality. Despite the fact that Confucius himself climbed out of low-ranking society and now often mingles with upperclass folk, he encourages the poor to be cheerful with their place in life and continues his narrative urging for ethical leadership. Confucius’ double-standards for the place of the poor in his proposed social hierarchy are often overlooked to honor his wisdom and hope for morality when, in reality, he lacked basic morals in the hypocritical life of teaching that he boasted.
The views of Confucius not only permeated his overarching philosophies, but his own sense of self was tainted with classism and superiority. In his teachings, Confucius regularly encouraged moral actions by people in positions of authority, and yet he did not show grace in times when he held social advantage. Not only did Confucius prove his hypocrisy and forget his lowly upbringing to act with classist bias, but he also did not, as the saying goes, “practice what he preached” in terms of morality towards his inferiors, despite advising various leaders in power to do so. One anecdote in The Analects reveals Confucius’ behavior, in response to a negative interaction with a cohort of farmers: “...the Master sighed: ‘One cannot associate with birds and beasts. With whom should I keep company, if not with my own kind? If the world were following the Way, I would not have to reform it’” (“Confucius” 1339). The common farmers identified Confucius’ hypocrisy and addressed his entourage with seeming disdain; it is often taught that Confucius was not widely recognized for his teachings during his life, but the commoners displayed outright contempt and almost ridicule towards the sage. Proving their disgust as fair, Confucius immediately comments that the commoners were unrefined like wild animals, and he would rather choose to socialize with whom he “keep(s) company.” The supposed righteous teacher seemingly forgets that he, too, originated from a poorer background. Besides his dehumanizing classism towards the men he encountered, he blatantly ignored the common advice he gave to lords and kings to treat every subject well in order to earn respect. Confucius displays a hypocritical air of superiority that contradicts both his actions and his philosophies.
Many uphold that Confucius was a champion for the poor who encouraged education among the lower classes. He is known for boasting the belief that all humans could benefit from quality education (Rattini). However, the teacher’s words and actions in The Analects express otherwise. Confucius idolized those in power with a standard of morality while ultimately upholding a classist narrative against lower levels of his social pyramid in his teachings and beliefs. These beliefs are showcased in an advisory session between Confucius and a lord: “Lord Ji Kang asked Confucius about government, saying: ‘Suppose I were to kill the bad to help the good: how about that?’ Confucius replied: ‘You are here to govern, what need is there to kill? If you desire what is good, the people will be good. The moral power of the gentleman is wind, the moral power of the common man is grass. Under the wind, the grass must bend.’ ” (“Confucius” 1336). Confucius verbalizes his ideas that the moral power of the “common man” is weak and pliable like grass, furthering his classist narrative that the poor are morally unfit to be gentlemen. In contrast to the grass-like common man, Confucius names nobility or “gentlemen” as powerful, moving like wind. If Confucius was a true advocate for the poor, as he is widely known for, he would not degrade the common man and dissociate himself from them despite coming from a humble background. Confucius’ philosophy has deceived generations of general perspective, but records show his classist and hypocritical beliefs regarding the lower classes.
The widespread fame and honor of Confucius’ philosophies despite apparent hypocrisy is concerning. The impact of Confucianism reaches far beyond ancient China; many countries such as Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, among others, were heavily influenced by the philosophies, and many people still subscribe to its ideas today (Weiming). The reach of Confucius, while known for encouraging moral and righteous behavior, is spreading subtle messages through teachings from a hypocritical master that exhort classism and discourage social mobility. To be able to critique great ancient works is imperative to ensuring a well-rounded view on basic ideals such as morality and social structure. Observing and applying both the beneficial and harmful biases of a philosophical figure like Confucius allows room for modern introspection into social standards at multiple levels. Confucius’ hypocrisy in maintaining a social hierarchy that degrades the common man and praises virtuous leaders is proven throughout his recorded philosophy in The Analects. By dissecting Confucius’ ideas and separating the altruistic from the hypocritical, Confucianism can become a tool for righteousness in society rather than a blind subscription to antiquated classist ideals.
“Confucius.” The Norton Anthology of World Literature, by Martin Puchner et al., 4th ed., A, W.W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp. 1326–1339.
Rattini, Kristin Baird. “Who Was Confucius?” National Geographic, National Geographic, 20 May 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/confucius/.
Weiming, Tu. “Confucianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 12 Aug. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/Confucianism.
ANNA BIERMA is a freshman pursuing general education studies. Selected by Professor Sharon Emmerichs.