Skip to main content

Why Care? A Feminist Re-appropriation of Confucian Xiao

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dao Companion to the Analects

Part of the book series: Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy ((DCCP,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter concerns the contemporary debate on the intersectionality of Confucianism with feminism in general and its compatibility with care ethics in particular. My intent here is to propose a hybrid feminist care ethics that is grounded in Confucianism by, on the one hand, integrating specifically the concepts of xiao 孝 and ren 仁 into existing care ethics so as to strengthen and broaden its theoretical horizon and, on the other, revising Confucian gender requirements in light of feminist demands for gender equity. It is my take that Confucian xiao 孝, as the root of ren 仁, is a moral vision that sees human inter-dependency as a strength in, and not a distraction from, human flourishing. In the same way, care ethics also starts with meeting the caring needs of one’s intimate loved ones, and caring relations in the personal realm for care ethicists have an ontological primacy. Morality for Confucius as well as for care ethicists, unlike the Kantian, liberal model that emphasizes detachment and personal autonomy, simply cannot bypass one’s affective ties in the familial realm. In the following, I will provide a hybrid account of care ethics and Confucianism – Confucian care – in which caring for the socially dependent and vulnerable starting with one’s loved ones is viewed as constitutive of the substance of one’s sense of the self; it forms part of one’s life’s journey to self-realization, not only in the realm of morality, but also in the realm of feminism as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter employs the Ames and Rosemont 1998 translation of the Analects.

  2. 2.

    Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Xiaojing are from the Rosemont and Ames 2009 translation.

  3. 3.

    Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Mengzi are from the Lau 1970 translation.

  4. 4.

    Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Zhongyong are from the Ames and Hall 2001 translation.

References

  • Ames, Roger T., and David L. Hall (trans.). 2001. Focusing the familiar: A translation and philosophical interpretation of the Zhongyong. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, Roger T., and David L. Hall (trans.). 2003. Daodejing: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books. (For the concept of xiao, see especially Ch. 18 and 19.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, Roger T., and Henry Rosemont Jr. (trans.). 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, Richard. 1997. Feminism and family justice. Public Affairs Quarterly 11(4): 345–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, Annette C. 2000. Hume: The reflective women’s epistemologist? In Feminist interpretations of David Hume, ed. Anne Jaap Jacobson. University Park: The Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Alan K.L., and Tan Sor-Hoon (eds.). 2004. Filial piety in Chinese thought and history. London: Routledge Cruzon. (Anthology on various historical studies and applications of xiao.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Daxue 大學. 1994. In Zhu Xi 朱熹, The four books 四書. Tainan: Dayou Chubanshe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, Nicholas. 1995. The friendship model of filial obligations. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12(1): 77–87. (A revision of Jane English’s “friendship model” of filial duty.)

    Google Scholar 

  • English, Jane. 1989. What do grown children own their parents? In Vice and virtue in everyday life: Introductory readings in ethics, ed. Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. (The pioneering piece on the “friendship model” of filial duty.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, Carol. 1993. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1987. Thinking through Confucius. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, Ranjoo Seodu. 2003. Is Confucianism compatible with care ethics? A critique. Philosophy East & West 53(4): 471–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzman, Donald. 1998. The place of filial piety in ancient China. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118(2): 185–199. (A textual study of the origins of xiao.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanhoe, Philip J. 2007. Filial piety as a virtue. In Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems, ed. Rebecca L. Walker and Philip J. Ivanhoe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, Ian (trans.). 2010. The Mozi: A complete translation. New York: Columbia University Press. (For Mozi’s discussion of xiao, see especially Ch. 14–16: Universal Love I-III.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 2009. Special edition. Femininity and feminism: Chinese and contemporary. 36(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Simon. 2006. Four theories of filial duty. Philosophical Quarterly 56: 254–274. (Rejects all three existing theories of filial duty: debt, gratitude and friendship and instead proposes the “special goods” theory.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge. (A study of care ethics and the theory of disability.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, Eva Feder. 2002. Love’s labor revisited. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 17(3): 237–250. (A response to a collection of essays commenting on Kittay’s Love’s Labor.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, Keith N. 1995. The Ru reinterpretation of Xiao. Early China 20: 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblock, John. 1999. Trans. Xunzi, 2 vols. Hunan: Hunan People’s Publishing House. (All the translations of the Xunzi are Knoblock’s translation, unless noted otherwise.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, Julia. 1977. About Chinese women. Trans. Anita Barrows. New York: Urizen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai Tao, Julia Po-Wah. 2000. Two perspectives of care: Confucian Ren and feminist care. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 27(2): 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, Rae. 2000. Maria von Herbert’s challenge to Kant. In Ethics: Classical Western texts in feminist and multicultural perspectives, ed. James P. Sterba. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Include the translation of the correspondences between Maria von Herbert and Kant.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D.C. 1970. Mencius. Harmondsworth/New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legge, James (trans.). 1885. Li Chi (Liji): Book of rituals, 2 vols. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Chenyang. 1994. The Confucian concept of Jen and the feminist ethics of care: A comparative study. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 9(1): 70–89. (The pioneering piece on the comparative studies of Confucian ren and care ethics.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Yutang. 1989. On growing old gracefully. In Vice and virtue in everyday life: Introductory readings in ethics, ed. Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, Susan Moller. 1999. Is multiculturalism bad for women? In Is multiculturalism bad for women?, ed. Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and Martha C. Nussbaum. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (A collection of short essays responding to Okin’s original essay and Okin’s concluding remarks on the essays.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Anne. 2007. Multiculturalism without culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (The latest attempt to provide a solution to the tension between multiculturalism and feminism.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphals, Lisa. 2004. Reflections on filiality, nature and nurture. In Filial piety in Chinese thought and history, ed. Alan K.L. Chan and Sor-hoon Tan. London: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont Jr., Henry. 1996. Classical Confucian and contemporary feminist perspectives on the self: Some parallels, and their implications. In Culture and self: Philosophical and religious perspectives, East and West, ed. Douglas Allen. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemont, Henry Jr., and Roger T. Ames (trans.). 2009. The Chinese classic of family reverence: A philosophical translation of the Xiaojing. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, Sarah. 1980. Maternal thinking. Feminist Studies 6: 342–367. (The pioneering piece on care ethics.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand. 1922. The problem of China. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott, Robin May (Ed.). 1997. Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant. University Park: Penn State University Pres. (A collection of original and translated essays on the study of Kant as pertaining to feminism.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shun, Kwong-loi. 2003. Xiao (Hsiao): Filial piety. In Encyclopedia of Chinese philosophy, ed. Antonio S. Cua. New York: Routledge. (A useful summary of the concept of xiao in Confucianism.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Slote, Walter H. 1998. Psychocultural dynamics within the Confucian family. In Confucianism and the family, ed. Walter H. Slote and George A. Devos. Albany: State University of New York Press. (A collection of essays on the study of Chinese family.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, Christina. 1989. Philosophers against the family. In Vice and virtue in everyday life: Introductory readings in ethics, ed. Christina Sommers and Fred Sommers. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Wei-ming. 1985. Confucian thought: Selfhood as creative transformation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Wei-ming. 2001. Tasan lecture #3: A Confucian response to the feminist critique. The Tasan Lectures, Korea, November. http://tuweiming.com/lecture.7.html. Accessed 17 June 2011.

  • Wang, Su 王肅. 1996. The school sayings of Confucius 孔子家語. Taipei: Sanming Shuju. (For the textual origins, see Michael Loewe’s Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, The Society for the Study of Early China, 1993.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Burton (trans.). 1968. The complete works of Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi). New York: Columbia University Press. (For the concept of xiao, see especially Ch. 4, 14, 29 and 31.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bernard. 1981. Moral luck: Philosophical papers 1973–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Eric R. 1982/1997. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Margery. 1994. Beyond the patrilineal self: Constructing gender in China. In Self as person in Asian theory and practice, ed. Roger T. Ames, Wimal Disanayake, and Thomas P. Kasulis. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, Terry. 1999. Confucianism and feminism. In Feminism and world religions, ed. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rosenlee, LH.L. (2014). Why Care? A Feminist Re-appropriation of Confucian Xiao 孝. In: Olberding, A. (eds) Dao Companion to the Analects. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7113-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics