论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： Among the modern New Confucians， Carsun Chang is primarily characterized by his nationalism and spirit of freedom and in particular by the organic combination of the two in his thought， including his political thought. Although Chang the political activist eventually gave up his failing political endeavors to focus on scholarship in both Chinese and Western learning， he produced a style of New Confucian thought that remains valuable and worthwhile.
Keywords： New Confucianism， Carsun Chang， nationalism， spirit of freedom， political thought， Confucian tradition Carsun Chang’s 張君劢 （1887–1969） New Confucian thought is primarily characterized by its nationalism and spirit of freedom， which combine organically in his New Confucian system and give it a character of liberal nationalism.
Nationalism and Spirit of Freedom [Refer to page 60 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]To Chinese of the early modern period， the concept of nationalism was the product of the dissemination of Western culture into the East. “The German concept of the state had great impact on early modern Chinese intellectual circles.” Unlike the concept of the state based on personal freedom in Britain and America， German political philosophy emphasized the supremacy of the state， which has become an important model of modern nationalism.
In China， although Wang Tao 王韬 （1828–1897） used the word “nation” （minzu 民族）
around 1874， it was not until China’s defeat by Japan in 1895 that the word came into general use. Liang Qichao 梁启超 （1873–1929） was the first thinker in China to promote the idea of democracy. At this time， propagandists who sang the praises of nationalism also yearned for liberal and democratic thought， which meant that nationalism and liberalism were joined indissolubly from the beginning.
At this time， Carsun Chang went to Japan to study at Waseda University and published “On John Stuart Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government” [穆勒约翰议院政治论]. This paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of autocracy and constitutionalism， and notes that citizens under autocracy dare not speak freely because of the “fear of penalty day and night，” preventing intellectual progress， for which reason autocracy will inevitably fail and be eliminated. In contrast， under constitutional government，
（1） Where the constitution is established and the rights of the people are guaranteed， each has the freedom of their own pursuits， which leads to the individual progress of the society. （2） Since people enjoy the right to discuss politics， they are naturally enthusiastic about all kinds of undertakings， even a city or county is not comparable between a constitutional country and autocratic country， and naturally their state of government is different too. Because of its incomparable advantages over autocracy， “constitutionalism must be the trend of many countries in the twentieth century.” Carsun Chang also discussed the relationship between constitutionalism and the nation and believed that people sharing the same national loyalties should stand under the same government and be united as one people. But this kind of unity must be a willing association based on a real assimilation of different nationalities. On this basis， he advocated abandoning narrow-minded national enmities and uniting the Han and Manchu nationalities to oppose autocracy and strive for freedom and civil rights. It can be seen that in this early period when Carsun Chang’s thought began to sprout， nationalism and moderate liberalism were united.
The main thrust of Chang’s thought is try to erect a nation state on a foundation of constitutionalism. It is also the most important goal that he pursued in his life. This thought fully embodies the basic characteristics of his nationalism and spirit of freedom， and especially the unity of the two. During his visit to Germany， Carsun Chang was extremely inclined toward Hugo Preuss’ idea of a “state based on law” （Rechtsstaat）. For that matter， he submitted an article “The Concept of the State by the Drafter of the German New Constitution Hugo Preuss and His Place in the History of German Political Theory” [德國
新宪起草者柏吕斯之国家观念及其在德国政治学说史上之地位] for review. Later he further noted that the special significance of the “state based on law” was to recognize that the state must conform to the will of the people and that the people had the right to freedom. In the 1940s， after the two world wars and political turmoil， he noted more clearly that “the foundation of modern countries lies in constitutional politics， democratic politics， and politics based on human rights”; “personal freedom . . . [and] the guarantee of human rights are the true foundation of democratic politics.”
So what are these human rights that comprise the most important foundation of democracy or constitutionalism？ How can human rights become the basis of the “state based on law”？ Chang wrote，
Why does the state give people rights？ Because the power of the people is the power of the country. If we do not take the people as the master of a country， the politics of the country will not be just and fair. We must first recognize that the people are human beings and they have personality， and only then can we talk about governance. For the people， no matter how powerful it is， the state should always define a scope and inform its citizens of their rights of life， property， thought， and action. Within this range， these are the inherent and inalienable rights of all the people. Within this range， the state cannot impose coercion at will. Within this range， the rights enjoyed by individuals are called human rights.
Thus Chang revealed the inborn and non-transferrable nature of such basic human rights as life， existence， property， and thought and then gave them a philosophical basis—“human rights are the necessary rights for a person to be a human being.”
Since Chang’s thought echoed the theme of modern political science of how to build the relationship between state and individual， he would naturally pay special attention to the relationship between government power and individual freedom. In the 1920s， the Constitutional Draft of the Parliament [國是会议宪草]， which he presided over and drafted， adopted legal restrictionism （or indirect safeguards） for the people’s freedom and rights. For example， the expression “shall not be infringed （or restricted） unless in accordance with the law” was applied the rights of life， residence， communication， speech， publication， assembly， association， and other freedoms. In the 1930s， he proposed a “revised democratic politics” by “closely following the contradiction between freedom and power and reflecting on the historical logic of the change between liberalism and totalitarianism and the realities of China’s modernization predicament.” He tried to find a better balance between state power and people’s freedom. Carsun Chang thought that for a country， freedom and power “cannot be used freely without the other”; “power is a plan， a system， and a track while freedom is a will， a maneuver， and a spirit”; “without the system and track， there will be no correct direction， and the result will be chaos; without the maneuver and spirit， there will be no way to promote progress， and the result will be death.” The key is to coordinate and balance freedom with power and state or nation with individual. Therefore Chang’s so-called “revised democratic politics” meant not to abandon the spirit of freedom and move toward totalitarianism or dictatorship but rather to better protect the stability and quality of democratic politics， and hence Chang was not deviating from his consistent position of constitutional democracy.
Similarities and Differences from Statists [64] The basic characteristics of the unity between nationalism and spirit of freedom are also fully reflected in Chang’s thinking on establishing the state on the foundation of the nationalities （民族建國）. When emphasized this in his interpretation of the idea of nationalism and noted that the state and nationalities have been in a relation of mutual cause and effect since ancient times， because of which they can evolve into a modern nation-state. “The commonality of nationalities is expected to form the perfect organization of the state， which naturally becomes a theory of justification and reason.” His emphasis on the importance of the state seems to be quite similar to the ideas of such statists as Zeng Qi 曾琦 （1892–1951） and Li Huang 李璜 （1895–1991）. Therefore China National Socialist Party founded by Carsun Chang and Zeng and Li’s China Youth Party would merge into the Chinese Democratic Socialist Party， with Chang as its spiritual leader and party head. However， in Chang’s view， the key to China’s problems lay not in the conditions of the nationalities but in the imperfection of the state organization. This understanding made his thought different from the statists’ in at least the following three respects.
First， although the statists also said that they would implement a spirit of democracy， what they actually emphasized was the extreme importance of the central idea and central figure. The reason why China’s affairs of state were so disordered was the lack of a central idea and central figure. Therefore China had only to “work to create the central idea first， after which the central figure [would] emerge.” Though Chang also stressed the importance of social elites， especially political elites， he paid more attention to spiritual freedom in the formation of the state. His so-called spiritual freedom， manifested in politics， was to change the “imperative style in politics and morality and similar social trends” formed over thousands of years of autocratic regimes， so that the people could “do their work， participate in politics， and be all united against foreign aggressions， all from their own actions and without the intervention of others.” Meanwhile， the state should effectively protect the people’s freedom of life， property， speech， association， and participation in politics. All political organs should take public opinion as their premise and basis and strive to eliminate the legacy of “thousands of years of imperial rule in which political work has amounted only to self-aggrandizement and an unscrupulous quest for fame， power， and profit.” Based on this view， Chang took on the one hand “creating national culture based on spiritual freedom” as the general guideline of cultural construction in the state construction movement; and on the other hand， he criticized the leader of the ruling Kuomintang government： “Those politicians know the importance of establishing the nation state，” he wrote， “but they ignore whether the state is well organized or not. They cannot be called good at learning from the German Prime Minister Bismarck and the Italian patriot Mazzini.” Second， the statists believed that “whether a nation’s society enjoys order and progress all depends on the morality of its people.” Chang， of course， also attached great importance to morality in the founding of a nation， believing that a nation “without collective morality” could never stand firm among the world’s nations. However， he stressed that “starting with education， we should make all 390 million people recognize themselves as the people of the Chinese nation，” to form the first basic national consciousness of a highly conscious and unified nation. Meanwhile， he noted that the key to the rise and fall of a nation lay in whether it had sound citizens. The government should love the people， liberating them and making them the real masters of the country; support the people， developing the economy and improving living standards; educate the people， enlightening the people to provide them sound knowledge， understanding of civil rights and obligations， and discrimination between political right and wrong， so as to truly play the role of the masters of the country. He also noted that the traditional virtues of loyalty to the monarch and patriotism had the disadvantage that it made it impossible for scholars to pursue the “independent kingdom” of learning based on their spirit of freedom. In addition， Chang attached great importance to constructing a system of law and noted that law was “the highest principle of founding a state and a nation.” If China wanted to complete the work of establishing itself as a nation state and become a modern country， it had to develop the convention of rule of law and the spirit of sincerely abiding by the law. Chang also judiciously combined moral construction， national consciousness， and legal construction. He believed，
The guarantee of the constitution lies in the general spirit of the nation. That is， if the nation can know the necessity of the constitution itself， then the constitution can be implemented. It is clearly known that the constitution is not a machine that can be purchased in a day but actually has an inseparable relationship with the knowledge and morality of the nation.
Third， the statists emphasized that the elements of the establishment of a country “are not specific to the essence needed by the economy but to the soul endowed in history，” so that “the establishment of ‘national character’ is based on recollection of the past; this recollection is the same for the whole nation， regardless of class.” Chang believed that a nation “must have self-esteem and self-confidence before it can establish a country.” Therefore he stressed that the key to national rejuvenation and national construction was to improve national self-confidence. If we want to improve our national self-confidence， he believed， we must respect our own history and culture. Otherwise， “if we do not believe in ourselves， we cannot be human beings. Is there a country where people do not respect their own culture and yet can build a country？” Thus he criticized wholesale denial of Chinese historical and cultural tradition. Meanwhile， he thought that the China of the past had been not so much a country as a world. Ancient China represents the whole civilized world. What it relied on was not blood or force but culture. As long as any foreign nation accepted Chinese culture sincerely， it could be regarded as alike. He also reflected on history and tradition， noting that， In the two thousand years following the Qin dynasty， the government was an autocratic monarchy and most of the people were trained to servility. Children were protected by large families， depending on their parents， and they grew used to such a situation after living with them for a long time. The academy not only suffered from the shackles of words but also was marked with the tradition of “acceptance” and “tacit learning.” Therefore it lacked theoretical training and its reasoning was extremely underdeveloped.
Therefore Chang believed that the national character of a modern nation state should not be formed based on the recollection of history but needed to “undergo new efforts to establish the basis of a new politics.” In this way， he thought， “the old tradition can be preserved by new efforts without wavering. Otherwise， the new cannot be created and the old cannot be preserved.” What Chang wanted to create was a national culture based on spiritual freedom：
Individuals exert their spiritual freedom， thus forming the ideas of politics， morality， law， and art; for the individuals it is the development of freedom， and for the whole nation it is the achievement of national culture. Individuals’ freedom in spirit is based on their own self-conscious and automatic knowledge and ability， so as to manifest themselves in the dimensions of academics， politics， and art; and the discovery of this freedom in spirit is cumulated over time， so as to form politics， morality， and law， so as to maintain the survival of their nation. Therefore， due to the development of individual freedom， the survival of the nation can be consolidated. This is called national culture.
In Chang’s view， if we do this， we will certainly build up our national self-confidence. With national self-confidence， everything can be gradually remedied even if we are not as good as others at present; however， if national self-confidence is lost， we will eventually decline due to the lack of foundation even if we may succeed for a while.
It can be seen from the above that a nationalist orientation and the spirit of freedom， especially the combination of the two， are indeed the basic features of Carsun Chang’s thought and distinguish it from that of the statists. Moreover， such a system of thought is not only unique in the history of China’s New Confucianism but also has theoretical value and practical significance today.
Constitutional Thought and Confucian Tradition [68] Chang’s constitutional thought originated from Germany but also has British and American influences and seeks a compromise between the two traditions. How is this connected to Chinese Confucian tradition？ This paper offers the following brief analysis.
First， Chang’s thought on human rights， regarded as the “foundation of democratic politics，” is based on the recognition of human dignity. Human dignity is the core concept of the consciousness of modern human rights. The recognition of human dignity originates from an understanding of the inherent value of humans in a universal sense. Here “human dignity” means the total denial of a hierarchy between noble and base birth because human dignity is not exclusive to the nobility but belongs to everyone. In the Confucian tradition， there are numerous ideas about the importance of human dignity which have a profound influence on the Chinese personality and Chinese thought， life， thinking， and behavior. Although Carsun Chang did not systematically and intensively analyze the concept of human dignity in the Confucian tradition and only endowed human rights with philosophical significance through Kant， he firmly believed that “Confucianism can be modernized. There is no conflict between Confucianism and the so-called modern human dignity or rights.” Carsun Chang not only noticed “the significance of human rights in Mencius’s saying that ‘if the emperor considered his ministers as weeds or dust， the ministers would regard the emperor as a robber or villain.’” He also noted that “the concept of human dignity is the basic principle of Confucianism.” According to Chang， “Confucianism respects the people and limits the monarchy. Both of these are for the protection of human rights in a constitutional country， as well as in parliament and the cabinet with their responsibilities. Therefore， it has full compliance with the principle of human rights.” Chang attached great importance to the Confucian idea of “placing oneself in others’ position，” which implied individual equality， and regarded it as one of the reasons why Confucian philosophy should be revived. This shows that Chang’s thought on human rights was derived not only from Western learning but also from the Confucian tradition. However， he was reluctant to integrate Chinese thought with Western thinking on human rights and failed to build up a robust New Confucian theory of human rights and consolidate the philosophical foundation of his constitutional thought. Second， freedom， especially spiritual freedom， plays an important role in Chang’s system of thought. The basic contents of spiritual freedom are rational autonomy and free will. Rational autonomy is “the real driving force of modern times. . . . Although there are different manifestations in different fields， they come from the same source， that is， the rationality of the human mind or of thought.” Chang’s thinking on spiritual freedom was of course derived from the thought of such Western philosophers as Rudolf C. Eucken （1846–1926）， Henri-Louis Bergson （1859–1941）， and Immanuel Kant， but it was also rooted in the tradition of Chinese Confucianism. He clearly affirmed that there was another realm beyond politics in Chinese tradition and cited five examples， such as Zhuangzi’s words， Mencius’s position on the so-called righteousness of the upright and the great Way （正位大道）， as well as Song–Ming Neo-Confucian scholars， who refused to accept power as evidence. It is based on this understanding that Chang regarded Confucian thinking on spiritual freedom so highly. For example， Mencius’s doctrine of intuitive knowledge “can be compared with Kant’s assertion that ‘only the truth in the will is good.’” Regarding Wang Yangming 王阳明 （1472–1528）， who inherited Mencius’s doctrine， Chang remarked that “the focus of his philosophy is closely related to intuitive knowledge—this view cannot be found in other philosophical systems except Kant’s idea of the will as practical reason.” Therefore it is necessary to activate the tradition which made such vistas of the spirit available and carry forward its greatness， so that spiritual freedom or the spirit of freedom can become the way to establish a country.
Finally， Chang gave full attention to the similarities and differences in the political philosophies of East and West， which can be summarized in one sentence： “there is no concept of national polity in the East， but there is in the West.” “The essence of a nation，” he wrote， “is the state， and its activity is politics; because of the purpose of politics， its execution is administration. In China after the Qin dynasty， there were discussions of administrative systems but not of politics or the state.” Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 （1909–1995） was influenced by this view in his conclusion in Politics and Governance [政道與治道] that in traditional China “there was governance but no politics.” Chang thought that “superficially the political philosophy of Confucianism in the pre-Qin period seems to be far from that of the West today. However， as far back as ancient Greece， the words of Confucius and Mencius are fundamentally the same as those of Plato and Aristotle，” and he demonstrated them through detailed comparative analysis. It can be seen that Chang took Greek thought as the origin of Western culture and pre-Qin thought as the origin of Chinese culture. Therefore， he thought， “the argument of the same Confucians and Greek philosophers is extended to the political good and evil of the contemporary West， all of which are inseparable from morality.” This shows that his political thought was deeply based on the Confucian tradition and， on the other hand， that he consciously introduced the Western democratic constitutionalism with traditional Confucian resources， so that it could take root and grow in China. In the history of New Confucianism， such practice and ideological and theoretical achievements are rare， scarcely equaled even by Chang’s contemporaries Kang Youwei 康有为 （1858–1927）， Liang Qichao， Feng Youlan 冯友兰 （1895–1990）， Mou Zongsan， and Tang Junyi 唐君毅 （1909–1978）.
Translated by Zhu Yuan
Keywords： New Confucianism， Carsun Chang， nationalism， spirit of freedom， political thought， Confucian tradition Carsun Chang’s 張君劢 （1887–1969） New Confucian thought is primarily characterized by its nationalism and spirit of freedom， which combine organically in his New Confucian system and give it a character of liberal nationalism.
Nationalism and Spirit of Freedom [Refer to page 60 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]To Chinese of the early modern period， the concept of nationalism was the product of the dissemination of Western culture into the East. “The German concept of the state had great impact on early modern Chinese intellectual circles.” Unlike the concept of the state based on personal freedom in Britain and America， German political philosophy emphasized the supremacy of the state， which has become an important model of modern nationalism.
In China， although Wang Tao 王韬 （1828–1897） used the word “nation” （minzu 民族）
around 1874， it was not until China’s defeat by Japan in 1895 that the word came into general use. Liang Qichao 梁启超 （1873–1929） was the first thinker in China to promote the idea of democracy. At this time， propagandists who sang the praises of nationalism also yearned for liberal and democratic thought， which meant that nationalism and liberalism were joined indissolubly from the beginning.
At this time， Carsun Chang went to Japan to study at Waseda University and published “On John Stuart Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government” [穆勒约翰议院政治论]. This paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of autocracy and constitutionalism， and notes that citizens under autocracy dare not speak freely because of the “fear of penalty day and night，” preventing intellectual progress， for which reason autocracy will inevitably fail and be eliminated. In contrast， under constitutional government，
（1） Where the constitution is established and the rights of the people are guaranteed， each has the freedom of their own pursuits， which leads to the individual progress of the society. （2） Since people enjoy the right to discuss politics， they are naturally enthusiastic about all kinds of undertakings， even a city or county is not comparable between a constitutional country and autocratic country， and naturally their state of government is different too. Because of its incomparable advantages over autocracy， “constitutionalism must be the trend of many countries in the twentieth century.” Carsun Chang also discussed the relationship between constitutionalism and the nation and believed that people sharing the same national loyalties should stand under the same government and be united as one people. But this kind of unity must be a willing association based on a real assimilation of different nationalities. On this basis， he advocated abandoning narrow-minded national enmities and uniting the Han and Manchu nationalities to oppose autocracy and strive for freedom and civil rights. It can be seen that in this early period when Carsun Chang’s thought began to sprout， nationalism and moderate liberalism were united.
The main thrust of Chang’s thought is try to erect a nation state on a foundation of constitutionalism. It is also the most important goal that he pursued in his life. This thought fully embodies the basic characteristics of his nationalism and spirit of freedom， and especially the unity of the two. During his visit to Germany， Carsun Chang was extremely inclined toward Hugo Preuss’ idea of a “state based on law” （Rechtsstaat）. For that matter， he submitted an article “The Concept of the State by the Drafter of the German New Constitution Hugo Preuss and His Place in the History of German Political Theory” [德國
新宪起草者柏吕斯之国家观念及其在德国政治学说史上之地位] for review. Later he further noted that the special significance of the “state based on law” was to recognize that the state must conform to the will of the people and that the people had the right to freedom. In the 1940s， after the two world wars and political turmoil， he noted more clearly that “the foundation of modern countries lies in constitutional politics， democratic politics， and politics based on human rights”; “personal freedom . . . [and] the guarantee of human rights are the true foundation of democratic politics.”
So what are these human rights that comprise the most important foundation of democracy or constitutionalism？ How can human rights become the basis of the “state based on law”？ Chang wrote，
Why does the state give people rights？ Because the power of the people is the power of the country. If we do not take the people as the master of a country， the politics of the country will not be just and fair. We must first recognize that the people are human beings and they have personality， and only then can we talk about governance. For the people， no matter how powerful it is， the state should always define a scope and inform its citizens of their rights of life， property， thought， and action. Within this range， these are the inherent and inalienable rights of all the people. Within this range， the state cannot impose coercion at will. Within this range， the rights enjoyed by individuals are called human rights.
Thus Chang revealed the inborn and non-transferrable nature of such basic human rights as life， existence， property， and thought and then gave them a philosophical basis—“human rights are the necessary rights for a person to be a human being.”
Since Chang’s thought echoed the theme of modern political science of how to build the relationship between state and individual， he would naturally pay special attention to the relationship between government power and individual freedom. In the 1920s， the Constitutional Draft of the Parliament [國是会议宪草]， which he presided over and drafted， adopted legal restrictionism （or indirect safeguards） for the people’s freedom and rights. For example， the expression “shall not be infringed （or restricted） unless in accordance with the law” was applied the rights of life， residence， communication， speech， publication， assembly， association， and other freedoms. In the 1930s， he proposed a “revised democratic politics” by “closely following the contradiction between freedom and power and reflecting on the historical logic of the change between liberalism and totalitarianism and the realities of China’s modernization predicament.” He tried to find a better balance between state power and people’s freedom. Carsun Chang thought that for a country， freedom and power “cannot be used freely without the other”; “power is a plan， a system， and a track while freedom is a will， a maneuver， and a spirit”; “without the system and track， there will be no correct direction， and the result will be chaos; without the maneuver and spirit， there will be no way to promote progress， and the result will be death.” The key is to coordinate and balance freedom with power and state or nation with individual. Therefore Chang’s so-called “revised democratic politics” meant not to abandon the spirit of freedom and move toward totalitarianism or dictatorship but rather to better protect the stability and quality of democratic politics， and hence Chang was not deviating from his consistent position of constitutional democracy.
Similarities and Differences from Statists [64] The basic characteristics of the unity between nationalism and spirit of freedom are also fully reflected in Chang’s thinking on establishing the state on the foundation of the nationalities （民族建國）. When emphasized this in his interpretation of the idea of nationalism and noted that the state and nationalities have been in a relation of mutual cause and effect since ancient times， because of which they can evolve into a modern nation-state. “The commonality of nationalities is expected to form the perfect organization of the state， which naturally becomes a theory of justification and reason.” His emphasis on the importance of the state seems to be quite similar to the ideas of such statists as Zeng Qi 曾琦 （1892–1951） and Li Huang 李璜 （1895–1991）. Therefore China National Socialist Party founded by Carsun Chang and Zeng and Li’s China Youth Party would merge into the Chinese Democratic Socialist Party， with Chang as its spiritual leader and party head. However， in Chang’s view， the key to China’s problems lay not in the conditions of the nationalities but in the imperfection of the state organization. This understanding made his thought different from the statists’ in at least the following three respects.
First， although the statists also said that they would implement a spirit of democracy， what they actually emphasized was the extreme importance of the central idea and central figure. The reason why China’s affairs of state were so disordered was the lack of a central idea and central figure. Therefore China had only to “work to create the central idea first， after which the central figure [would] emerge.” Though Chang also stressed the importance of social elites， especially political elites， he paid more attention to spiritual freedom in the formation of the state. His so-called spiritual freedom， manifested in politics， was to change the “imperative style in politics and morality and similar social trends” formed over thousands of years of autocratic regimes， so that the people could “do their work， participate in politics， and be all united against foreign aggressions， all from their own actions and without the intervention of others.” Meanwhile， the state should effectively protect the people’s freedom of life， property， speech， association， and participation in politics. All political organs should take public opinion as their premise and basis and strive to eliminate the legacy of “thousands of years of imperial rule in which political work has amounted only to self-aggrandizement and an unscrupulous quest for fame， power， and profit.” Based on this view， Chang took on the one hand “creating national culture based on spiritual freedom” as the general guideline of cultural construction in the state construction movement; and on the other hand， he criticized the leader of the ruling Kuomintang government： “Those politicians know the importance of establishing the nation state，” he wrote， “but they ignore whether the state is well organized or not. They cannot be called good at learning from the German Prime Minister Bismarck and the Italian patriot Mazzini.” Second， the statists believed that “whether a nation’s society enjoys order and progress all depends on the morality of its people.” Chang， of course， also attached great importance to morality in the founding of a nation， believing that a nation “without collective morality” could never stand firm among the world’s nations. However， he stressed that “starting with education， we should make all 390 million people recognize themselves as the people of the Chinese nation，” to form the first basic national consciousness of a highly conscious and unified nation. Meanwhile， he noted that the key to the rise and fall of a nation lay in whether it had sound citizens. The government should love the people， liberating them and making them the real masters of the country; support the people， developing the economy and improving living standards; educate the people， enlightening the people to provide them sound knowledge， understanding of civil rights and obligations， and discrimination between political right and wrong， so as to truly play the role of the masters of the country. He also noted that the traditional virtues of loyalty to the monarch and patriotism had the disadvantage that it made it impossible for scholars to pursue the “independent kingdom” of learning based on their spirit of freedom. In addition， Chang attached great importance to constructing a system of law and noted that law was “the highest principle of founding a state and a nation.” If China wanted to complete the work of establishing itself as a nation state and become a modern country， it had to develop the convention of rule of law and the spirit of sincerely abiding by the law. Chang also judiciously combined moral construction， national consciousness， and legal construction. He believed，
The guarantee of the constitution lies in the general spirit of the nation. That is， if the nation can know the necessity of the constitution itself， then the constitution can be implemented. It is clearly known that the constitution is not a machine that can be purchased in a day but actually has an inseparable relationship with the knowledge and morality of the nation.
Third， the statists emphasized that the elements of the establishment of a country “are not specific to the essence needed by the economy but to the soul endowed in history，” so that “the establishment of ‘national character’ is based on recollection of the past; this recollection is the same for the whole nation， regardless of class.” Chang believed that a nation “must have self-esteem and self-confidence before it can establish a country.” Therefore he stressed that the key to national rejuvenation and national construction was to improve national self-confidence. If we want to improve our national self-confidence， he believed， we must respect our own history and culture. Otherwise， “if we do not believe in ourselves， we cannot be human beings. Is there a country where people do not respect their own culture and yet can build a country？” Thus he criticized wholesale denial of Chinese historical and cultural tradition. Meanwhile， he thought that the China of the past had been not so much a country as a world. Ancient China represents the whole civilized world. What it relied on was not blood or force but culture. As long as any foreign nation accepted Chinese culture sincerely， it could be regarded as alike. He also reflected on history and tradition， noting that， In the two thousand years following the Qin dynasty， the government was an autocratic monarchy and most of the people were trained to servility. Children were protected by large families， depending on their parents， and they grew used to such a situation after living with them for a long time. The academy not only suffered from the shackles of words but also was marked with the tradition of “acceptance” and “tacit learning.” Therefore it lacked theoretical training and its reasoning was extremely underdeveloped.
Therefore Chang believed that the national character of a modern nation state should not be formed based on the recollection of history but needed to “undergo new efforts to establish the basis of a new politics.” In this way， he thought， “the old tradition can be preserved by new efforts without wavering. Otherwise， the new cannot be created and the old cannot be preserved.” What Chang wanted to create was a national culture based on spiritual freedom：
Individuals exert their spiritual freedom， thus forming the ideas of politics， morality， law， and art; for the individuals it is the development of freedom， and for the whole nation it is the achievement of national culture. Individuals’ freedom in spirit is based on their own self-conscious and automatic knowledge and ability， so as to manifest themselves in the dimensions of academics， politics， and art; and the discovery of this freedom in spirit is cumulated over time， so as to form politics， morality， and law， so as to maintain the survival of their nation. Therefore， due to the development of individual freedom， the survival of the nation can be consolidated. This is called national culture.
In Chang’s view， if we do this， we will certainly build up our national self-confidence. With national self-confidence， everything can be gradually remedied even if we are not as good as others at present; however， if national self-confidence is lost， we will eventually decline due to the lack of foundation even if we may succeed for a while.
It can be seen from the above that a nationalist orientation and the spirit of freedom， especially the combination of the two， are indeed the basic features of Carsun Chang’s thought and distinguish it from that of the statists. Moreover， such a system of thought is not only unique in the history of China’s New Confucianism but also has theoretical value and practical significance today.
Constitutional Thought and Confucian Tradition [68] Chang’s constitutional thought originated from Germany but also has British and American influences and seeks a compromise between the two traditions. How is this connected to Chinese Confucian tradition？ This paper offers the following brief analysis.
First， Chang’s thought on human rights， regarded as the “foundation of democratic politics，” is based on the recognition of human dignity. Human dignity is the core concept of the consciousness of modern human rights. The recognition of human dignity originates from an understanding of the inherent value of humans in a universal sense. Here “human dignity” means the total denial of a hierarchy between noble and base birth because human dignity is not exclusive to the nobility but belongs to everyone. In the Confucian tradition， there are numerous ideas about the importance of human dignity which have a profound influence on the Chinese personality and Chinese thought， life， thinking， and behavior. Although Carsun Chang did not systematically and intensively analyze the concept of human dignity in the Confucian tradition and only endowed human rights with philosophical significance through Kant， he firmly believed that “Confucianism can be modernized. There is no conflict between Confucianism and the so-called modern human dignity or rights.” Carsun Chang not only noticed “the significance of human rights in Mencius’s saying that ‘if the emperor considered his ministers as weeds or dust， the ministers would regard the emperor as a robber or villain.’” He also noted that “the concept of human dignity is the basic principle of Confucianism.” According to Chang， “Confucianism respects the people and limits the monarchy. Both of these are for the protection of human rights in a constitutional country， as well as in parliament and the cabinet with their responsibilities. Therefore， it has full compliance with the principle of human rights.” Chang attached great importance to the Confucian idea of “placing oneself in others’ position，” which implied individual equality， and regarded it as one of the reasons why Confucian philosophy should be revived. This shows that Chang’s thought on human rights was derived not only from Western learning but also from the Confucian tradition. However， he was reluctant to integrate Chinese thought with Western thinking on human rights and failed to build up a robust New Confucian theory of human rights and consolidate the philosophical foundation of his constitutional thought. Second， freedom， especially spiritual freedom， plays an important role in Chang’s system of thought. The basic contents of spiritual freedom are rational autonomy and free will. Rational autonomy is “the real driving force of modern times. . . . Although there are different manifestations in different fields， they come from the same source， that is， the rationality of the human mind or of thought.” Chang’s thinking on spiritual freedom was of course derived from the thought of such Western philosophers as Rudolf C. Eucken （1846–1926）， Henri-Louis Bergson （1859–1941）， and Immanuel Kant， but it was also rooted in the tradition of Chinese Confucianism. He clearly affirmed that there was another realm beyond politics in Chinese tradition and cited five examples， such as Zhuangzi’s words， Mencius’s position on the so-called righteousness of the upright and the great Way （正位大道）， as well as Song–Ming Neo-Confucian scholars， who refused to accept power as evidence. It is based on this understanding that Chang regarded Confucian thinking on spiritual freedom so highly. For example， Mencius’s doctrine of intuitive knowledge “can be compared with Kant’s assertion that ‘only the truth in the will is good.’” Regarding Wang Yangming 王阳明 （1472–1528）， who inherited Mencius’s doctrine， Chang remarked that “the focus of his philosophy is closely related to intuitive knowledge—this view cannot be found in other philosophical systems except Kant’s idea of the will as practical reason.” Therefore it is necessary to activate the tradition which made such vistas of the spirit available and carry forward its greatness， so that spiritual freedom or the spirit of freedom can become the way to establish a country.
Finally， Chang gave full attention to the similarities and differences in the political philosophies of East and West， which can be summarized in one sentence： “there is no concept of national polity in the East， but there is in the West.” “The essence of a nation，” he wrote， “is the state， and its activity is politics; because of the purpose of politics， its execution is administration. In China after the Qin dynasty， there were discussions of administrative systems but not of politics or the state.” Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 （1909–1995） was influenced by this view in his conclusion in Politics and Governance [政道與治道] that in traditional China “there was governance but no politics.” Chang thought that “superficially the political philosophy of Confucianism in the pre-Qin period seems to be far from that of the West today. However， as far back as ancient Greece， the words of Confucius and Mencius are fundamentally the same as those of Plato and Aristotle，” and he demonstrated them through detailed comparative analysis. It can be seen that Chang took Greek thought as the origin of Western culture and pre-Qin thought as the origin of Chinese culture. Therefore， he thought， “the argument of the same Confucians and Greek philosophers is extended to the political good and evil of the contemporary West， all of which are inseparable from morality.” This shows that his political thought was deeply based on the Confucian tradition and， on the other hand， that he consciously introduced the Western democratic constitutionalism with traditional Confucian resources， so that it could take root and grow in China. In the history of New Confucianism， such practice and ideological and theoretical achievements are rare， scarcely equaled even by Chang’s contemporaries Kang Youwei 康有为 （1858–1927）， Liang Qichao， Feng Youlan 冯友兰 （1895–1990）， Mou Zongsan， and Tang Junyi 唐君毅 （1909–1978）.
Translated by Zhu Yuan