|
|
|
| Transcendentalist Subjectivity and Confucian Role Ethics: A New View of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman’s Writings of Self |
| Duan Guozhong1, Gu Mingdong2 |
1.School of International Studies, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225000, China
2.School of Arts and Humanities, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75080, USA |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The positive writings of self by Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, the three most brilliant writers in the American Renaissance of the 19th-Century, laid the foundation for the establishment of American identity and national literature. American individualism is believed to be rooted more in their transcendentalist vision of the self, but because of ego-centrism and transcendence, it fell into an awkward position that demanded reflections and rectifications. The awkwardness is shared by all ontological theories of subjectivity in the Western tradition, which prioritize the correspondence between the inner mind and the transcendental principle, paying little attention to practical experiences and existential embeddedness—the inter-relatedness between a subject and the other, society, and nature, etc. Descended from a similar line of intellectual thought, the American philosopher and sinologist Roger Ames, assimilating ideas from both the Chinese and Western traditions, has proposed a theory of Confucian role ethics, which holds that an individual exists as a relational and “becoming” moral subject rooted in concrete social roles and inter-connections. This theory, departing from the Western ontological view of the subject, is conducive to exposing the problematic aspects of individualism and may serve as a viable way out of the ego-centric trap for individuals. The 19th-Century writings of the self and Roger Ames’ Confucian role ethics are actually addressing the same issue and their ways out seem to be fundamentally compatible. The Emersonian transcendentalism fails to deal with the problems of ego-centrism, abstractness, and transcendence rooted in the Western metaphysics. It intensifies the awkwardness of individualism while promoting the abstract moral subject in America, and hence it becomes one of the major thoughts with which Roger Ames’ theory of the Confucian role ethics is engaged in a dialogue. In Thoreau’s writings of the self, the nature, the body, and a variety of the “other” are recovered with the breakdown of the ME-NOT ME dichotomy, demonstrating Thoreau’s motive to decentralize the abstract self and to locate the self in a concrete existence. Meanwhile, Thoreau values both the Western ontological question of “what am I” and the Confucian practical and ethical question of “What can I do”. Thoreau’s idea concerning the self and moral subject casts doubt on metaphysical subjectivity by problematizing its essentialist stand with an insight that the self does not exist as a self-sufficient being, but rather as a constructed subject endowed with the relational and processual characteristics, thereby possessing a compatibility with the theory of the Confucian role ethics. Whitman’s writings of the concrete moral subject as man-en-masse goes beyond Thoreau’s prioritization of nature, and seeks a true self in the concrete interactions with the body, other, masses, and society, etc. Whitman’s self differs sharply from Emerson’s in that his foremost concern lies in real self-mass interactions, rather than the divinity and principles or Ideas precious to the idealistic tradition. His location of the self in the concrete relations in the mass suggests an inner similarity with Confucianism preoccupied with human relations in social ethics. Inspired by Roger Ames’ theory of Confucian role ethics, we have located in Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman’s writings of the self an implicit tendency that turns away from abstractness to concreteness, from individual interiority to corporeal, natural, and social exteriority, distancing itself from the Western ontological assumptions of subjectivity and coming closer to the Confucian role ethics. An inquiry into this turn not only helps deepen our understanding of American transcendentalism and American Renaissance, but may also enable us to be further aware of the universal significance of Confucianism and inspire us to find a way out of the trap wrought by the ego-centric individualism that troubles the world and societies.
|
|
Received: 22 July 2021
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
杨金才： 《美国文艺复兴经典作家的政治文化阐释》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2009年。2 Matthiessen F. O.， American Renaissance： Art and Expression in the Age of Emerson and Whitman， New York： Oxford University Press， 1954.3 Steele J.， The Representation of the Self in the American Renaissance， London： University of North Carolina Press， 1987.4 Bowers D.， “Democratic Vistas，” in Spiller R. E.， Thorp W. & Johnson T. H. et al. （eds.）， Literary History of the United States， New York： Macmillan， 1948， pp. 345-357.5 Foucault M.， The Hermeneutics of the Subject： Lectures at the Collège de France 1981-1982， eds. by Gros F.， Ewald F. & Fontana A. et al.， trans. by Burchell G.， New York： Picador， 2005.6 美］安乐哲： 《儒家角色伦理学：一套特色伦理学词汇》，［美］孟巍隆译，济南：山东人民出版社，2017年。7 美］阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔： 《追寻美德：道德理论研究》，宋继杰译，南京：译林出版社，2011年。8 美］弗莱德·R·多尔迈： 《主体性的黄昏》，万俊人、朱国钧、吴海针译，上海：上海人民出版社，1992年。9 Gura P. F.， American Transcendentalism： A History， New York： Hill and Wang， 2007.10 美］拉尔夫·爱默生： 《爱默生集》，［美］吉欧·波尔泰编，赵一凡、蒲隆、任晓晋等译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1993年。11 毛亮： 《抽象与具象之间：爱默生个人主义的形而上学问题》，《外国文学评论》2010年第2期，第151-166页。12 唐嘉薇： 《从漠然到释然——论爱默生思想中个体/社会关系模型的演变》，《外国文学》2018年第4期，第153-162页。13 Pease D. E.， Visionary Compacts： American Renaissance Writings in Cultural Context， Madison： The University of Wisconsin Press， 1987.14 钱满素： 《爱默生和中国：对个人主义的反思》，北京：东方出版社，2018年。15 美］亨利·梭罗： 《瓦尔登湖》，王家湘译，北京：北京十月文艺出版社，2007年。16 邹建军、白阳明： 《从道德自我到生态自我：梭罗伦理思想的建构之路》，《江汉论坛》2019年第6期，第71-76页。17 浦立昕： 《论儒家思想对梭罗的影响——从“安贫乐道”到“自愿清贫”》，《孔子研究》2012年第3期，第112-116页。18 陈开先： 《孔子仁学思想及其现代意义》，《孔子研究》2001年第2期，第47-55页。19 美］沃尔特·惠特曼： 《草叶集》，邹仲之译，上海：上海译文出版社，2015年。20 李永毅： 《惠特曼〈草叶集〉中的“自我”观念》，《天津外国语学院学报》2005年第3期，第55-58页。21 杨金才、丁晓红： 《沃尔特·惠特曼：肉体的诗人和灵魂的诗人》，《国外文学》2005年第1期，第75-82页。22 区鉷： 《庄子：惠特曼对郭沫若的影响中介——兼论借鉴外国文学过程中的本土意识》，《外国文学评论》1988年第2期，第116-121页。23 梁漱溟： 《东西文化及其哲学》，见《梁漱溟全集》第一卷，济南：山东人民出版社，2005年。
|
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
