Transcendence in Molefi Kete Asante’s Afrocentricity and Tu Wei-ming’s Embodied Confucianism from the Perspective of Cultural Community
Stuart Patterson
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorshumanities-3117143-peer-review-v1 reviewer report
Overall, this paper is a well-written interdisciplinary paper. Its academic significance is showcased by its original attempt to compare the concept of transcendence in Afrocentricity and ‘embodied Confucianism’ and reveal resources to embody a ‘new cosmopolitanism’ against the worrying trend of cultural assimilation and uniformity owing to the rise of nationalism. By comparing both traditions, this paper not only provides a new way of intercultural dialogues (between Africa and Sinosphere, rather than the traditional approaches between “East and West” and “North and South”) but also amplifies the applicability of Chinese philosophy to other disciplines (namely, African studies and literature) in English academic world, thus advancing the current research.
While the reviewer has no background in African studies and cannot comment on the author’s analysis of Afrocentricity, the author provides insightful analysis of the limitation of Tu Wei-ming’s embodied Confucianism as well as the Chinese society (both ancient and modern), namely, the inclination to nepotism. (p. 12) The author evaluated Tu’s concept of embodied Confucianism to demonstrate the universality of Confucian ethics and critically compared the embodied Confucian concentric framework (p. 5) to the pyramid model of the African tradition (p. 7). This filled up the gap of the current scholarship (in both Chinese and English-speaking circles) where comparative studies between African philosophy and Chinese philosophy have yet to be developed.
However, from the perspective of contemporary Chinese philosophy, the main limitation of this paper is the lack of academic contextualisation, and therefore a minor revision is suggested. This problem somehow resulted from the overdependence on Tu’s reformulation of Confucianism (where Confucianism is seriously ‘de-contextualised’) but I will leave the note on Tu’s problem at the end of this comment merely as an ‘opinion’ rather than a ‘suggestion for revision’ as it is more about academic positions rather than the quality of argumentation. To maintain the author’s position but contextualise the paper in the fields of Chinese philosophy, cultural anthropology and literature, instead of giving up Tu’s framework, references to other Chinese philosophers’ papers are needed.
The lack of contextualisation is observed in the following aspects:
1. Insufficient citation of the primary sources of Confucian texts, namely Four Books and Five Classics (with expositions of relevant historical and cultural contexts)
2. Insufficient citation of contemporary secondary sources (other than Tu’s) that examine Confucian philosophy of culture addressing the issues of monoculturalism and multiculturalism
3. Inadequate introduction of relevant theories in cultural anthropology and/or sociology showcasing the contribution of Confucianism to their discussions on the concept of cosmopolitanism
Another problem would be insufficient sign-posting; to increase readability, sign-positing sentences are necessary. This will be further discussed under ‘other minor details’.
1. Insufficient citation of the primary sources of Confucian texts, namely Four Books and Five Classics
Confucianism centres on the interpretations of classics. Even if the author does not want to go through historical commentaries, e.g. Kong Yingda’s and Zhu Xi’s, he/she should directly quote Analects, Mencius, the Doctrine of the Mean, Great Learning, Book of Odes, Book of Documents, Classics of Rites, Yi Ching and Spring and Autumn. If Classical Chinese is an issue, the author can refer to the English translation (Chan Wing-tsit and Ivanhoe have translated some of them, though Chan’s translation is preferred. Ivanhoe’s translation is wordy, but it is worth taking a look if one would like to understand Ivanhoe’s philosophical interpretations).
For example, Tu’s discussion of the concepts of self, family, society, nation, world and Heaven (p. 15) should be referred to Mengzi’s discussion of five relationships (Mencius 3A:4), the commensurability among mind, nature and Heaven (Mencius 7A:1) and the relationships among Heavenly command, nature and cultivation (Doctrine of the Mean 1). This also applied to the discussion of the Heavenly Way on p. 7. On p.9 when discussing the functions of music, the author should at least cite one example from the Classic of Rites (e.g. the chapter of 樂記 Yue Ji) or Analects arguing that music is the instrument achieving harmony.
2. Insufficient citation of contemporary secondary sources
In the first section, you only provide the academic context of the tension between ‘cultural uniformity and the promotion of cultural diversity’ in social science and Continental philosophy but not contemporary Chinese philosophy. You have not even declared that this paper largely depends on Tu’s framework, which should be clarified in the very beginning (or else people may suspect you are talking about Joseph Chan or other philosophers’ versions of Confucianism).
In the second section, there is a lack of literature review of other contemporary philosophers working on Chinese philosophy of culture which adopt different approaches to address the tension between ‘cultural uniformity and the promotion of cultural diversity’. This includes:
Andrew Ka Pok Tam, “Confucian Multiculturalism: A Kantian Reinterpretation of the Classic of Rites.” Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture 7, no. 1 (2023): 26-46.
Sungmoon Kim, “Public equality and democratic pluralism”, Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Remarkably, Tam shared a similar topic with this paper but took a very different approach: he reformulated a ‘Confucian Multiculturalism’ through a Kantian reinterpretation of the Classics of Rites to oppose the prevailing monoculturalism. However, his approach is much more ‘traditional’ than this paper: he focused on the modern reinterpretation of Confucian classics inspired by Mou Zong-san. He employed such a reinterpreted Confucianism to criticise contemporary Chinese society.
Similarly, Sung revised Joseph Chan’s famous Confucianism perfectionism to embrace multiculturalism by examining Xunzi’s and Mengzi’s embedded ‘constitutionalism’. He argued that Confucianism acknowledges the cultural rights of every individual, which aligns with Kymlicka’s multiculturalism. The author should mention how this paper is different from these two similar projects working on Confucian multiculturalism.
(optional: the author could also criticise the limitations of Tam’s and Sung’s Confucian multiculturalism from Tu’s perspective and argue why Tu’s model is more appropriate to be applied to the Sino-African dialogue, but this may make the paper too long)
If the author can read traditional Chinese when discussing the Confucian concept of ‘body learning’(p.8), he/she should also cite Huang Chun-chieh’s 〈東亞儒家思想傳統中的四種「身體」: 類型與議題〉《東亞儒學：經典與詮釋的辨證》（臺北：臺大出版中心，2007）。 This chapter is available online:
http://huang.cc.ntu.edu.tw/pdf/CCA3807.pdf
Huang divided the Confucian concept of the body into four types: the manifestation of political powers, the manifestation of social normativity, the place for spiritual cultivation, and metaphor. These are all disregarded by Tu (possibly due to his isolation from the Taiwanese academic circle dominated by New Confucianism).
3. Inadequate introduction of relevant theories in cultural anthropology and/or sociology
Tam’s paper is also helpful as he listed lots of useful references in cultural anthropology, sociology and Chinese philosophy, which can enrich this paper significantly: for instance, this paper did not properly define and contextualise ‘cultural uniformity and the promotion of cultural diversity’ properly, Tam summarised the historical and cultural context of monoculturalism in Japan and China and referred to cultural sociology for categorisations of cultural policies (monoculturalism, leitkultur, multiculturalism, and interculturalism). These secondary literatures in social science includes:
Berry, John W. “Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 1, no. 46 (1997): 5–68.
Gomarasca, Paolo. “Multiculturalism or Hybridisation? Cultural Mixing and Politics.” Diversities 2, no. 15 (2013): 67–80.
Berry’s article is remarkably important as it is a classic in cultural sociology which defines monoculturalism and multiculturalism. The author should include it in either section 1 or 2.
Other minor details
The title should indicate that you are talking about Tu Wei-ming’s embodied Confucianism rather than other versions of Confucianism.
p. 1 ‘Reverse of Williams and Tönnies’s community which prizes shared experience, Heidegger’ from this sentence onward you turn to Continental philosophy from sociology. Since both belong to different disciplines, you’d better separate them into two paragraphs (with appropriate transition sentences, of course): one paragraph for the context in social science and another paragraph for the context in Continental philosophy (and then one more in contemporary Chinese philosophy)
p.2 ‘and the unique, indivisible essence of individuality are fundamental components of any collective identity’ where does this quotation come from? Please indicate.
p. 2 ‘Compared with the Western theories on community, Chinese scholars, such as Fei Xiaotong (2005), Yue Daiyun (2021) and Zhu Zhenwu (2022), opposed the “centrism” of any country or region,’ what did they say? Please at least give one example, summarising any of their opposition against centrism, and if possible, with a one-sentence quotation. Not everyone is familiar with Chinese sociology and cultural anthropology.
p. 2 ‘Afrocentricity and embodied Confucianism, two cultural trends that fully embody a “new cosmopolitanism”’ Why do you pick up Afrocentricity and embodied Confucianism for comparison? In the following argument, I see it is because you think the concept of transcendence in both traditions proposes certain kinds of ‘communitarianism’ which provides resources to formulate new cosmopolitanism. But you need to sign-post in the introduction, showing that you are going to demonstrate both traditions share such a common ontological ground.
p.3 ‘Neo-Confucianism’ and ‘Neo-Confucianist’ clarify what you mean in footnote. Does Neo-Confucianism refer to the Cheng Zhu School or the Lu Wang School? Please note that the twentieth-century 新儒家 New Confucianism is distinguished from Neo-Confucianism which refers to the Song and Ming dynasties Confucians rather than contemporary Confucians. While Tu declared himself as a New Confucian, such an identity is questionable. You may consider to rephrase as ‘embodied Confucianism reformulated by Tu’.
p.3 ‘All philosophical thoughts, without exception, come from human’s longing for a better and happy life … (Zhang 2007)’ “Zhang 2007” is not found in the reference list, and this claim is too strong. Obviously, some analytic philosophers who only work on metaphysics and epistemology are not pursuing ‘happy life’ but merely want to solve abstract philosophical problems. Reconsider whether you still want to keep this sentence, if yes please rephrase into a weaker tone.
p.4 ‘In his opinion, the significance of Confucianism is not limited to the scope of moral practice, but has [a] quite profound religious connotation.’ that’s not Tu’s original idea, he simply copied from Mou Zong-san and Tang Jung-yi without crediting them. For example, in Nineteen Lectures, Mou said:
“We have just said that in the West the question of being has been turned over to God; it is understood through the idea of God. The Chinese idea of “heaven” is also responsible for the existence of the myriad things [the phenomenal world]. Hence “The Way of heaven procreates and transforms.” The idea of heaven has existed since the time of the Three Dynasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou. By the time of Confucius, although his focus was ren, he certainly did not deny “heaven.” That is why it is unacceptable for people to erase “heaven” and turn it completely into something material. From this standpoint, the Confucian metaphysics of morals implies a moral metaphysics, just as Kant’s metaphysics of morals implies a moral theology. Kant spoke only of a moral theology and not of a moral metaphysics. The "moral" in moral metaphysics and moral theology is an adjective. It is to say that this religion, this metaphysics, is based on morals. Confucianism speaks not of a moral theology but of a moral metaphysics, since Confucianism is not a religion. In Confucianism, there is a heaven to be responsible for being. Confucius’s ren and Mencius’s xing [human nature] were certainly in communion with heaven, certainly in communion and therefrom united with heaven. This ren and xing cannot be sealed off. Therefore the Confucian metaphysics of morals necessarily implies a moral metaphysics. To speak of cosmology is not necessarily to be cosmology-centered, just as to speak of theology does not necessarily imply theological ethics. Kant also spoke of theology, but his theology did not contain theological ethics. On the contrary, he spoke about moral theology. Theological ethics make religion the basis of morality. Moral theology makes morality the basis of religion. The emphases of the two are completely different, and are as a matter of fact diametrically opposed.”
Mou Zong-san, trans. Julie Lee Wei, “Lecture 4”, Nineteen Lectures on Chinese Philosophy, p. 71 https://www.nineteenlects.org/
(the link seems overdue, if the author does not have the pdf please contact )
p.5 ‘The third one is nature and the fourth one is heaven, which is not God, Brahman, or Buddha, but a transcendent referent. Heaven is a category which cannot be reduced to nature.’ as mentioned above, here you should use quotations from Mencius 7A:1 and Doctrine of the Mean 1 to verify Tu’s claim.
p.6 ‘“the unity of heaven and earth” is the highest embodiment of self-transcendence’ again please cite Doctrine of the Mean 1 and elaborate on how the original text agrees with Tu’s reinterpretation
p.8 ‘Confucian ethics becomes a kind of a mafia ethic’ just opinion: good point, unfortunately, that’s exactly what happens in the contemporary Chinese society.
p.8 ‘Confucian learning is body learning’ as mentioned above, if possible, add secondary literature on the Confucian concept of body learning
p.9 ‘The so-called harmony is the pleasure achieved by the resonance of various musical instruments ’ please cite the Classics of Rites to justify. This claim is also questionable as ancient Chinese music seems to only achieve uniformity but not harmony. In De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas, Matteo Ricci complained that there was no homophonic or polyphonic texture in Confucian temple music but merely boring monophony. But I will leave it as this paper is not about aesthetics or Chinese music.
p.12 ‘While Confucianism highly values the family unit as a foundational element for personal growth and self-realization, it can also foster nepotism and an unhealthy degree of family connectedness.’ just a comment: that’s exactly what happens in China
p.s. The overall problem of Tu Wei-ming
While Tu Wei-ming’s ‘embodied Confucianism’ remains popular in the English academic circle of Chinese philosophy, he is less welcomed in the Chinese academic circle, remarkably among new Confucian 新儒家 (in Taiwan and Hong Kong in particular). Put simply, Tu’s idea of ‘the third wave of Confucianism’ is not original. Tu simply copied Mou Zong-san’s idea without crediting Mou sufficiently. This has offended certain Mou Zong-san’s and Tang Jung-yi’s students (which is exactly the problem of ‘mafia ethics’ the author mentioned on p. 8. It actually exists in the Chinese academic circle, although in this case their dislike of Tu may be somehow justified). Furthermore, to ‘universalise’ Confucianism, Tu intentionally unrooted New Confucianism from its social, political, cultural and ideological contexts. When Mou developed the concept of ‘the third wave of Confucianism’, he frequently referred back to the traditional Chinese culture to demonstrate how Confucianism may embrace the development of science and democracy and address the ‘weakness’ of Western cultures. Mou highlighted the differences between Chinese and Western cultures, but Tu overemphasised the similarity between the two to showcase the universality of Confucianism. The disregard for differences between Chinese and Western cultures also weakens the criticality of Confucianism against both contemporary Chinese and Western cultures. To overcome Tu’s limitation, the author should ‘re-contextualise’ Confucianism by directly referring to the primary sources and adding other secondary sources that engage more closely with the classics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revisions have made this a strong paper and I am eager to see it published. However, there remain a few spelling and phrasing errors that it will be best to correct. First, there are five instances of misspelling of the name "Asante" as "Asnate" - including in the title. I have highlighted those instances as they should be fixed in the attached file. Then, there are also highlighted minor mistakes on page 3 (Confucianism should be Confucian), page 4 (where the word "the" should be removed before Afrocentric) and the front quotation mark should be placed around the quotation from Mbiti, and on page 5 Phylosophical should be spelled Philosophical. I appreciate the author's revisions otherwise.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The revisions have made this a strong paper and I am eager to see it published. However, there remain a few spelling and phrasing errors that it will be best to correct. First, there are five instances of misspelling of the name "Asante" as "Asnate" - including in the title. I have highlighted those instances as they should be fixed in the attached file. Then, there are also highlighted minor mistakes on page 3 (Confucianism should be Confucian), page 4 (where the word "the" should be removed before Afrocentric) and the front quotation mark should be placed around the quotation from Mbiti, and on page 5 Phylosophical should be spelled Philosophical. I appreciate the author's revisions otherwise.
Author Response
Comment: The revisions have made this a strong paper and I am eager to see it published. However, there remain a few spelling and phrasing errors that it will be best to correct. First, there are five instances of misspelling of the name "Asante" as "Asnate" - including in the title. I have highlighted those instances as they should be fixed in the attached file. Then, there are also highlighted minor mistakes on page 3 (Confucianism should be Confucian), page 4 (where the word "the" should be removed before Afrocentric) and the front quotation mark should be placed around the quotation from Mbiti, and on page 5 Phylosophical should be spelled Philosophical. I appreciate the author's revisions otherwise.
Response: Thanks a lot! The authors have corrected all the spelling and phrasing errors listed above.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
