Religious and Ethical Conception of Xiao-Filiality in Pre-Imperial China

Abstract

Xiao-filiality is the most fundamental concept in the Chinese intellectual-cultural tradition. It represents not only family values but also religious, political and ethical ideologies. The conception of xiao, which originally denoted the meanings of presenting offerings to deceased ancestors and inheriting their legacy in the Shang dynasty, went through two stages of evolution from the early Zhou dynasty to the Warring States period. In the first stage, xiao was extended to ethical domain with the humanistic turn from human-spirit relationship to human-human relationship. Xiao was not only expanded to the empirical exercise of serving living parents but also established as a ritual-ethical norm that defined people’s familial, social, and hierarchical role duties and regulated their conducts of dealing with interpersonal relationships. As a result, the religious authority of paranormal ancestral spirits was transferred to the social-political authority who enforced the implement of the ritual-ethical norm of xiao. In the second stage, Confucius and his followers on the one hand recognized the importance of compliance with this prescribed ritual-ethical norm, and on the other internalized it to become the individual agent’s moral emotion and free choice. Consequently, the social-political authority was further transferred to the internal authority of moral autonomy.

1. Introduction

Xiao 孝 or filiality (also translated as filial piety) is generally regarded as the most fundamental concept in the Chinese intellectual-cultural tradition. It represents not only family values but also religious, political, and ethical ideologies. Scholars of ancient and present, China and abroad, have made great efforts in explicating xiao’s ample implications and significant influences in China as well as in other East Asian nations. Due to the limited space, this essay focuses on the formation and evolution of this concept from the Shang 商-dynasty (ca. 1600–1045 BCE) ancestor worship and sacrifice to the Zhou 周-dynasty (ca. 1045–256 BCE) ritual-ethical institution, and eventually to classical Confucian ethical-moral theorization in the late Spring and Autumn and Warring States period.

Modern scholarship on the conception of xiao-filiality during this period have mainly explored three major issues. The first is the emergence of the concept xiao. Discussions on this issue often start with the question of when the character xiao first appeared, and the dating of either the Shang dynasty or the Zhou dynasty is still controversial.1 Accordingly, scholars have also debated on whether the concept xiao emerged in the Shang or Zhou.2 Others contend that no matter there was the character xiao or not, the concept xiao was already present in the Shang on the ground that some of its early implications and activities, such as worshipping and presenting offerings to one’s ancestors and the lineage institution of father-son transmission, already existed in the Shang as described in many oracle bone inscriptions (M. Qian 1989, p. 51; Dong 1996, pp. 627–28; Jacobs 1973, pp. 25–32).

The second major issue discussed in previous scholarship is the implications of xiao before Confucius. Scholars have demonstrated that xiao originally denoted the activities of presenting food offerings to one’s deceased ancestors and inheriting their legacy, and then it was extended to the daily life of serving living parents and became an ethical virtue (S. Xu 1963, p. 173; Hou 1957, pp. 186–87; Li 1974, p. 23; Zhou 1985, p. 66; S. Wang 1989, p. 117–18; Knapp 1995, pp. 197–202; Holzman 1998, pp. 186–87; Xiao 2002, pp. 18–25).

The third major issue studied in previous scholarship is the classical Confucian interpretation/reinterpretation of xiao. Their main arguments include Confucius and his followers rationalized xiao and connected it to ren 仁 or humaneness (S. Xu 1963, pp. 57–76; Schwartz 1975, pp. 57–68; Li 1986, pp. 7–51), and advocated respectful care for one’s parents and obedience to parents and superiors (Roetz 1993, pp. 53–66; Kuang 1979, p. 233; Holzman 1998, p. 189; C. Wang 2007, pp. 145–52).

With this fruitful scholarship as a solid basis and utilizing both transmitted classics and excavated bamboo-silk manuscripts, this essay is aimed at digging out more religious and ethical ideas deeply embodied in xiao and drawing a new chart of its conceptual evolution during this early period. Since the conception of xiao involves both religious and philosophical domains, a combined approach of both disciplines is applied for this study, and the philosophical theory of the division and interaction between ethics and morality is especially helpful.3 Applying this approach, I distinguish and discuss two stages of xiao’s conceptual evolution from the early Zhou to the Warring States period (475–221 BCE). In the first stage, I explore how the implication of xiao was extended from presenting offerings to deceased ancestors and inheriting their legacy in the Shang to ethical domain with the humanistic turn from human-spirit relationship to human-human relationship. I argue that xiao was not only expanded to the empirical exercise of serving living parents, but also established as a ritual-ethical norm that defined people’s familial, social, and hierarchical role duties and regulated their conducts of dealing with interpersonal relationships. In the second stage, I demonstrate how, from the late Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BCE) to Warring States, Confucius and his followers on the one hand recognized the importance of compliance with this prescribed ritual-ethical norm, and on the other internalized it to become the individual agent’s moral emotion and free choice.

2. From Religious Belief of Human-Spirit Relationship to Ethical Norm of Human-Human Relationship

2.1. Human-Spirit Connection and Lineage Continuity

Xiao’s early implications include presenting food offerings to one’s deceased ancestors and inheriting ancestors’ legacy. By examining some similar phrases and compounds containing xiao in Western Zhou sources such as bronze inscriptions and poems from the Shijing 詩經 (Classic of Poetry), including “yong xiang yong xiao” 用享用孝, “xiang xiao” 享孝, “xiao xiang”孝享, “xiang xiao” 卿 (a load word for xiang 鄉/饗) 孝, “yi xiang yi xiao” 以享以孝, and so forth, scholars have found that xiao is used as a verb in these expressions, in which xiao, xiang 享, and xiang 卿/饗 denote the similar meaning of presenting food offerings to one’s deceased ancestors in sacrificial rituals (Zhou 1985, p. 66; S. Wang 1989, pp. 117–18; Knapp 1995, pp. 197–200).4 This kind of religious activity and ritual comprises the major content described in numerous Shang-dynasty oracle bone inscriptions. Furthermore, another phrase “zhuixiao” 追孝 that appears frequently in bronze inscriptions, the Shangshu 尚書 (Book of Documents), and the Shijing has been interpreted as to inherit and transmit ancestors’ genealogical and political legacy (S. Wang 1989, p. 118; Xiao 2002, pp. 18–25).

The etymology of the character xiao supports these interpretations. The pictographic structure of the character xiao 孝 depicts zi 子 (child) under lao 耂 (i.e., lao 老, old person), which seems to symbolize the connection, interaction, transmission, or continuation between parent/ancestor and child/offspring or between older and younger generations (M. Qian 1994, p. 56; B. Mao 2009, p. 72). It does not present any visual sign of “good in serving parents. … The young supports the elder” 善事父母者. … 子承老也 as Xu Shen 許慎 (ca. 58–ca. 147) interpreted (S. Xu 1963, p. 173). In the Shang-Zhou period, the transmission and continuation between zi-offspring and lao-ancestor were demonstrated by the political regime of patriarchal, hereditary succession and empowered by the religious ritual of ancestral worship and sacrifice. In the Shang oracle bone inscriptions, the character zi, which comprises the lower part of xiao, is mainly used as a designation of noble status, referring to kings, princes of current or former kings, and heads (collateral zi-princes) of collateral lineages and their offspring.5 This designation of noble status was inherited by the Zhou.6 Since the zi-king/prince was the host of ancestral sacrifice, they connected themselves with the spirits of the lao-ancestor during the process of ritual performance, providing food to them and in turn requesting blessings from them. This kind of connection between zi and lao is visually demonstrated by the pictographic structure of xiao. Thus, it is no wonder one of xiao’s early meanings was to make sacrificial offerings to ancestors.

On the other hand, zi-offspring’s performance of sacrifice to ancestors was purported in receiving blessings from the spirits for the everlasting and prosperity of their lineage. This central concern of xiao is typically presented in the poem “Ji zui” 既醉 (Drunk), in which the invocator announces the blessing of the ancestor’s spirit (represented by the impersonator) to the king who hosts the ancestral sacrifice: “For the filial son’s (the king’s) deed without ceasing, there will ever be conferred blessings on your lineage” 孝子不匱, 永錫爾類; “You (the king) shall live for ten thousand years, and there will be granted to you prosperity and posterity” 君子萬年, 永錫祚胤 (Shijing no. 276; Legge 1991, vol. 4, pp. 477–78).7 As David N. Keightley indicates, by regularly scheduled ritual of ancestor sacrifice, the Shang-Zhou rulers empowered their ancestors and retained them in this world to bless the continuity and prosperity of the royal and collateral lineages (Keightley 2014, pp. 155–206).

From above discussions, we see that the early implications of xiao denoted the meaning of making sacrifice to ancestors and inheriting their genealogical and political legacy. This kind of activity and idea was mainly built on the belief that deceased ancestors would continue to bless their offspring through properly performed ritual of ancestor sacrifice. Therefore, xiao originally implied the religious idea of human-spirit connection and interaction, through which the ancestral spirits were invested with authoritative power to influence their offspring’s existential experience.

2.2. Humanistic Turn and Ethical Norm

While the Shang rulers seem to have focused on constructing the religious human-spirit relationship through the ritual of ancestral sacrifice, the Zhou rulers expanded the content of the ritual by the humanistic ethics of familial, interpersonal relationship. The religious ritual of presenting food offerings to deceased ancestors (as well as of burying and mourning them) was further developed and performed, but it was also extended to the daily life of serving the physical and psychological wellbeing of living parents. As a result, the concept xiao was extended from ritual of making offerings to ancestors to filial activity of “good in serving parents” (S. Xu 1963, p. 173), and humanism “appears to have evolved smoothly from ancestor worship; magical care of the ancestors (ex-humans) leads to quasi-religious care of the parents (living humans), and may lead to ethical concern for other humans” (Keightley 2014, pp. 113–14). Moreover, the Zhou conception of xiao was much more complicated than just serving parents. With xiao-filiality as the core value, the early Zhou ruler constructed a ritual-ethical institution that defined reciprocal, hierarchical role duties between father and son, elder and younger brothers, which were not limited to immediate families but rather applied to the broad scope of genealogical kinship and thus virtually included all people in the lineage society of Zhou. The ritual-ethical virtue of xiao was established as an unwritten norm/law that must be observed by the people, marking the beginning of the ritual norm/law (lifa 禮法), which was going to last throughout Chinese history. Xiao was also furnished as an ideological instrument of government by virtue and ritual for effectively maintaining lineage harmony and social order, which was also going to last throughout Chinese history.

All these new ideas can be found in a significant statement attributed to Zhougong 周公 (Duke Zhou) in the “Kanggao” 康誥 (Announcement to Prince Kang) chapter of the Shangshu,8 which is generally believed to be Duke Zhou’s admonition to his younger brother Prince Kang. It reads as follows (Gu and Liu 2005, pp. 1336–41; Legge 1991, vol. 3, pp. 392–93):

Such chief criminals are greatly abhorred, but how much more detestable are the unfilial and unfraternal: the son who does not reverently serve his father but greatly wounds his father’s heart, and the father who does not love his son but hates him; the younger brother who does not think of the manifested [order] of heaven but refuses to respect his elder brother, and the elder brother who does not feel pity for the small child but is very unfraternally to his junior. If we who are charged with government tolerate these parties and do not charge them as offenders, the people’s law given by heaven to us will be thrown into great disorder and destroyed. Therefore, you must deal speedily with such parties according to the punishment of King Wen, punishing them with no pardoning. 元惡大憝, 矧惟不孝不友. 子弗祗服厥父事, 大傷厥考心; 于父不能字厥子, 乃疾厥子. 于弟弗念天顯, 乃弗克恭厥兄; 兄亦不念鞠子哀, 大不友于弟. 惟吊茲, 不于我政人得罪, 天惟與我民彝大泯亂. 曰, 其速由文王作罰, 刑茲無赦.

In this statement, first, the religious xiao-ancestral sacrifice was extended to the ethical xiao-filiality (you 友-fraternity can be seen as affiliated to xiao). Although the sacrificial ritual to deceased ancestors was inherited and developed, people were also required to serve their living parents and elders now, “to respect and undertake his father’s affairs” and “to be able to respect his elder brothers”. Duke Zhou’s another admonition to Prince Kang recorded in the “Jiugao” 酒誥 (Announcement of Wine) more clearly stresses that people must “serve your fathers and elders” 事厥考厥長 and “take care your fathers and mothers” 孝養厥父母 (Gu and Liu 2005, pp. 1388–95; Legge 1991, vol. 3, p. 404).9 This shift from human-spirit relationship to human-human relationship marked the humanistic-ethical turn in the Western Zhou ritual reform. Moreover, filiality was defined as mutual affection between son and father, and younger and elder brothers, and reciprocal duties concerning both parties of father and son or elder and younger brothers were stressed, rather than one directional service from son or younger brother. It should also be noted that, under the Zhou lineage institution, these reciprocal relationships were applied to the broad scope of lineage kinship.

Second, xiao was clearly identified as role duties that fit each person’s status in family and lineage: the father/parent’s role duty was to love and raise their son/child, the son/child’s duty to revere and serve their parents, the elder brother’s duty to pity and help his junior, and the younger brother’s duty to respect and submit to their elders. These duties were also hierarchically stratified, as the son/child and younger brother must revere and submit to their parents and elders.

Third, the ritual-ethical virtue of xiao was established as a social norm that must be observed by the people. The central theme of the text is to advice Prince Kang how to learn the “punishment of the Shang” (Yinfa 殷罰) and use it carefully when dealing with all criminal cases. When talking about the publishment of the unfilial and unfraternal, however, the prince was required to apply instead the “punishment of King Wen” (Wenwang zuo [zhi] fa 文王作 [之] 罰). The different treatment informs us two things: (1) the “punishment of the Shang” was a severe penal law; (2) the punishment of King Wen dealt with ethical issues and therefore was a ritual-ethical norm. This is in accordance with the idea of King Wen governing by virtue (de 德) at the beginning of the same text: “It was your great distinguished father, King Wen, who was able to illustrate his virtue and be careful in the use of punishments” 惟乃丕顯考文王, 克明德慎罰 (Legge 1991, vol. 3, p. 383); or with the poem “Wenwang” 文王 (King Wen): “Take your pattern from King Wen, and the myriad states will repose confidence in you” 儀刑文王, 萬邦作孚 (Legge 1991, vol. 4, p. 431). Wang Guowei explains the “punishment of King Wen” as people’s principles and ritual-virtue government (G. Wang 2001, pp. 242–43). Liu Qiyu contends that in this passage the duke emphasized ethical norm and regarded it as more important than penal law (Q. Liu 1988, pp. 2–8). Nevertheless, it should also be noted that because the unfilial and unfraternal must be punished with ritual norms, the ethical duty of xiao did not arise as the result of one’s voluntary acts but instead was postulated by institutional and social forces. As Qingjie Wang asserts, “It is not consensual, contractarian, and voluntarist but existential, communal, and historical” (Q. Wang 2002, pp. 235–36).

Fourth, as a result, the ritual-ethical norm of xiao provided to the Zhou political regime a new ideological instrument of government by virtue and ritual. The whole admonition was for the purpose of advising Prince Kang how to govern the Shang remnants, and government by the ethical virtue of filiality was one of the advises. The Analects also records Confucius citing a text from the Shangshu, “Oh filiality! Being filial [to parents] and fraternal to brothers, you can exert these virtues in government” 孝乎惟孝, 友於兄弟, 施於有政 (Analects 2.21; Legge 1991, vol. 1, p. 153).10 Thus, in the early Zhou, the dual function of religious and political exercises in the Shang conception of xiao was expanded to the triple function of religious, political, and ethical implements.

Then, roughly from the mid-Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn period, xiao-filiality had been generally recognized as the core value of ritual institution and an important instrument for political government, and two more relationships of lord-subject and husband-wife were added to the interpersonal, hierarchical ethics. In the Shijing, we find that the lord-subject relationship was likened to the father-son relationship (Shijing no. 251, 172; Legge 1991, pp. 489, 273). This was a natural extension, as the lord was usually the lineage head and his ministers/people his kinsman. The Zuozhuan 左傳 (Zuo’s Commentary) (3rd year of Duke Yin) records a list of six ethical norms (liushun 六順) stated by Shi Que 石碏, a minister of the Wei 衛 state, in 724 BCE: “the lord is dutiful, and the subject exertive; the father is kind, and the son filial; the elder brother is affectionate, and the younger brother respectful” 君義, 臣行; 父慈, 子孝; 兄愛, 弟敬 (Legge 1991, vol. 5, p. 14).11 Here the relationship of lord-subject was added to the two relationships of father-son and elder-younger brothers promoted in the early Zhou, and the reciprocal role duties of lord and subject were specifically defined. The hierarchical nature of these three pairs of relationship was also emphasized, as a negative list of six disobediences (liuni 六逆) that violated the hierarchical relationships was stated at the same time. Later, in 516 BCE, one more relationship of husband-wife was added to the list, which was also described as based on the core value of xiao-filiality, as the wife helped prepare the sacrificial food for ancestors as well as produce offspring for the continuity of the lineage (Zuozhuan 26th year of Duke Zhao; Legge 1991, vol. 5, p. 718).

All these new ideas invested in xiao from the early Zhou to Spring and Autumn period transferred the authoritative power from paranormal ancestral spirits to social, political, and ethical institutions and norms. Rituals of sacrificial offerings to ancestors were continuously performed, but properly regulated ethical relations, duties, and conducts became dominated in empirical human experience of daily life, presenting a unique kind of religious-humanistic ethics.

3. Ethical Compliance and Moral Internalization

The classical Confucian conception of xiao is both transmitting and innovating. On the aspect of transmitting, Confucius and his followers transmitted the Zhou ritual norm of xiao-filiality and further elaborated its religious, political, and ethical functions. On the aspect of innovating, they internalized xiao to become the individual agent’s moral emotion and autonomy.

3.1. Transmission of and Compliance with the Zhou Ritual-Ethical Norm of Xiao

According to the Analects (2.5), Confucius’ attitude of fully complying with the Zhou ritual norm of xiao is most clearly expressed in his reply to one of the questions on how to practice xiao (wen xiao 問孝): “When your parents are alive, comply with the ritual in serving them; when they die, comply with the ritual in burying them, and comply with the ritual in sacrificing to them” 生, 事之以禮; 死, 葬之以禮, 祭之以禮 (Lau 1979, p. 63). This reply includes all the three ritual activities of properly serving living parents, burying them when they died, and sacrificing to them after they became spirits. When Confucius said reverence and sincere facial expression to parents were much more important than providing them with food (Analects 2.7, 2.8), he did not mean that the latter was of little ethical values as some scholars have asserted (Knapp 1995, pp. 206–8), but rather stressed on one of the role duties of children already defined in early Western Zhou. Confucius’ (and his disciple Youzi’s) connection of xiao with political matters, such as without transgressing against one’s superior and without changing one’s deceased father’s policy and will (Analects 1.2, 1.11, 2.21, 4.20, 19.18), was an explication of the Zhou ritual-political function of xiao. When Confucius told Duke Jing of Qi 齊景公 the way of government was “to let the ruler be a ruler, the subject a subject, the father a father, and the son a son” (jun jun, cheng cheng, fu fu, zi zi 君君, 臣臣, 父父, 子子) (Analects 12.11; Lau 1979, p. 113), he was emphasizing the hierarchical role duties of the lord-subject and father-son relationships defined by the Zhou ritual. Confucius recommended that an upright son should not disclose his father’s wrongdoing to the public but instead remonstrate him with gentle words (Analects 13.18; Huang 2017, pp. 15–45). This seemingly unreasonable opinion embodies the Zhou ritual’s ethical, familial function, and hiding father’s wrongdoing was virtually practiced in the Spring and Autumn period (Zuozhuan 1st year of Duke Yin).

Roughly composed in the period between Confucius and Mencius, the excavated Guodian 郭店 manuscripts further elaborated the ritual-ethical norm of xiao. The Tang Yu zhi dao 唐虞之道 (The Way of Yao and Shun) states: “[The sages] personally served (the ancestors) in the ancestral temple, so as to teach the people to be filial” (qin shi zumiao, jiao min xiao ye 親事祖廟, 教民孝也; “Loving their parents, they were therefore filial” 愛親故孝 (W. Chen 2009, p. 194; Cook 2012, p. 552). Like Confucius, these statements complied to the Zhou ritual norm and explained xiao as serving both deceased ancestors and living parents. In addition, Guodian texts were among the earliest to connect xiao-filiality to parent with zhong-loyalty to lord.12 The Tang Yu zhi dao further states: “In ancient times, Shun of Yu earnestly served [his father] the Blinded One, and thus exemplified his filial piety; he loyally served the Sovereign Yao, and thus exemplified his [capacity to be] minister” 古者虞舜篤事瞽盲, 乃式其孝; 忠事帝堯, 乃式其臣; “As son of the Blinded One, [Shun] was exceedingly filial; when he became minister to Yao, he was exceedingly loyal” 為瞽盲子也, 甚孝; 及其為堯臣也, 甚忠 (W. Chen 2009, p. 194; Cook 2012, pp. 553, 556). These statements imply that a filial son would become a loyal minister (and a sage king). Another text Liude 六德 (Six Virtues) expounds this point more clearly: “If there are no affections between father and son, there will be no duties between lord and minister. Thus, in their instruction of the people, the former kings began with filiality and fraternity” 父子不親, 君臣無義. 是故先生之教民也, 始于孝弟 (W. Chen 2009, p. 238; Cook 2012, p. 795). This kind of connection was a further elaboration of the parallel of parent and lord in the Classic of Poetry and the extension of father-son relationship to lord-subject relationship.

Furthermore, during this period the term “pengyou” 朋友 or “you” 友 has been extended from its early meaning of kinsmen to friends in general sense and thus added as one more human relationship (Tong 1980, pp. 121–22; Z. Qian 1982, p. 272). The two relationships of lord-minister and friend-friend that grew out of the familial tie with parent-child as the core value were often likened to each other, and the reciprocal duties of corresponding parties were redefined. In the new ruler-minister friendship, the minister was described as possessing the rights to choose and leave the lord if the latter did not fulfil his relational duties (Hsu 1965, pp. 151–74; Zha 1995, pp. 12–18; Pines 2002b, pp. 38–42).13

Finally, in the Mencius (3A4), all the gradually identified five relationships of father-son, elder-younger brothers, lord-minister, husband-wife, and friends are placed together to complete the standard set of five human relationships (wulun 五倫). This set soon became the fundamental ethical structure of traditional Chinese culture and society, in which xiao-filiality had always been the core value that strung all the five relationships. Furthermore, Mencius exaggerated the legendary story of Shun’s exceedingly filial piety toward his vicious father, promoting filiality as “the way of Yao and Shun” (Mencius, 6B2). What Mencius meant by “the way of Yao and Shun” in fact referred to the Zhou ritual that constructed the ethical norm of filiality. Mencius also stressed on xiao’s political function and advised King Hui of Liang 梁惠王 to promote the ritual education of xiao as the best way of government. As he said, “Cautiously exercise the education provided by village schools, and instruct the people with the duties of filiality and fraternity” 謹庠序之教, 申之以孝悌之義 (Mencius 1A2; Lau 2003, p. 51).

Then, xiao-filiality is further elevated to the essence of ritual by Xunzi: “The way of filial child is the pattern and principle of li-ritual and yi-duty/rightness” 孝子之道, 禮義之文理也 (X. Wang 1988, p. 437; Hutton 2014, p. 250). Like the Guodian authors and Mencius, Xunzi earnestly promoted the ritual education of xiao-filiality and ti-fraternity in order to indoctrinate the people for better government: “to use xiao-filiality and ti-fraternity to indoctrinate them” 孝弟以化之也 (X. Wang 1988, p. 120; Hutton 2014, p. 54); “to encourage indoctrination, to foster xiao-filiality and ti-fraternity” 勸教化, 趨孝弟 (X. Wang 1988, p. 169; Hutton 2014, p. 78). Xunzi also directly connected xiao-filiality with zhong-loyalty and placed this connection in ritual context. For example, in the chapter “Discourse on Ritual” (Lilun 禮論), the terms “loyal subject and filial child” (zhongchen xiaozi 忠臣孝子) are used together several times when discussing the importance of observing funeral and sacrificial rituals (X. Wang 1988, pp. 360, 361, 376; Hutton 2014, pp. 207, 208, 215). Because Xunzi emphasized subject’s loyalty to and veneration of lord (zhong jun 忠君, zun jun 尊君, or long jun 隆君) and regarded this as more important than filiality to parent, he has been criticized as enhancing ruler’s authority and initiating the tendency toward autocratic rule in the coming unified empire (Takada 1944, pp. 221–43; Hamaguchi 1973, pp. 70–90; Kang 1992, pp. 201–2; Z. Wang 1999, pp. 84–90; C. Wang 2007, pp. 242–57). However, we should also see that Xunzi simultaneously defined the subject’s main duties and rights as remonstrating and defying the sovereign’s mistake and wrongdoing, and announced that the greatest conduct of a subject or a child was “to follow the Dao and not one’s lord, to follow yi-rightness and not one’s father” 從道不從君, 從義不從父 (X. Wang 1988, p. 529; Hutton 2014, p. 325). Here Xunzi’s “Dao” referred to ideal government. The lord had to be served and venerated because he was the pinnacle of political and social order, not because of his personal features; therefore “Xunzi advocated institutional rather than personal loyalty to the sovereign,” which did not necessarily lead to minister’s absolute obedience and lord’s autocratic power (Pines 2002a, pp. 68–71; Sato 2010, pp. 133–48).

In the Liji 禮記 (Record of Ritual), xiao is mainly discussed in the context of ritual specifics and ethical norms, including serving parents submissively, exercising proper rites in sacrificial, funeral, and mourning ceremonies, and educating people with xiao to indoctrinate them.14 The text also connects xiao with zhong (Zheng and Kong 2000, p. 1571), but the purpose was again for better government, without directing to political autocracy.

3.2. Internalization of Xiao and Moral Autonomy

Classical Confucians’ most important contribution to the conception of xiao is to internalize the ritual-ethical norm to become individual’s inner moral emotion, free will, and virtue. As discussed above, in the Zhou ritual institution, xiao was established as the core norm of ethics defining proper interpersonal relationships and was imposed forcefully to regulate people’ conducts. Confucius fully recognized the importance of observing this ritual-ethical norm, but he also explained xiao as one’s spontaneous loving feelings toward parents and rational intention of repaying parents’ fostering. For example, when discussing the ritual of three-year mourning, Confucius indicated that the exercise of the ritual relied on one’s psychological feelings of comfortableness and reflections of parents’ love and nurture (Analects 17.21). In this way, Confucius reinterpreted the religious-ethical norm of xiao as the individual’s internal moral emotions and rational reflections and elevated the forceful regulation as one’s conscious concept and free choice. Furthermore, Confucius connected xiao to ren-humanness and asserted that, with parent-child love as the core, the emotion of loving kindness radiated from near to far, from intimate to distant, eventually reaching ren or general love/humaneness (Analects 1.2, 1.6; F. Xu 2002, pp. 57–76; Schwartz 1975, pp. 57–68; Li 1986, pp. 7–51).

Several Guodian texts present continuing efforts toward the internalization of xiao. The Yucong yi 語叢一 (Miscellaneous Discourses I) states (W. Chen 2009, p. 246):

To perform xiao-filiality [for a purpose] is not filial; to perform ti-fraternity [for a purpose] is not fraternal. One cannot perform xiao and ti [purposively], and yet one must perform them. To perform them [purposively] is wrong, and not to perform them is also wrong. 為孝, 此非孝也; 為弟, 此非弟也. 不可為也, 而不可不為也. 為之, 此非也; 弗為, 此非也.

Some scholars correctly interpret this paradoxical “to do or not to do” as one should perform xiao and ti but should not perform them purposively, but they do not explain the reason for this paradox (W. Chen 2009, p. 249). If we connect it to classical Confucian internalization of xiao, it becomes clear that the passage distinguishes two kinds of motivation for the exercise of xiao: one should not perform xiao and ti as passively observing ritual norm but rather should act as actively following one’s own emotion and intention. The text Wuxing 五行 (Five Conducts) also explicates Confucius’ extension from xiao to ren: “To love one’s father, and following this to love other human beings, this is ren-humaneness” 愛父, 其繼愛人, 仁也 (W. Chen 2009, p. 184).

This process of internalization seems to have completed in the Mencius. Mencius directly explained the external, ritual norm of xiao as inner, spontaneous emotions of filiality and fraternity and extended them to the virtues of ren-humaneness and yi 義-duty/rightness (Mencius 7A15, 1A7; Lau 2003, pp. 56, 184):

What a person is able to do without having learned it is one’s true ability; what one knows without having reflected on it is one’s true knowledge. There are no young children who do not know loving their parents, and when they grow up none of them will not know respecting their elder brothers. Loving one’s parents is ren-humaneness; respecting one’s elders is yi-duty/rightness. 人之所不學而能者, 其良能也; 所不慮而知者, 其良知也. 孩提之童, 無不知愛其親者; 及其長也, 無不知敬其兄也. 親親, 仁也; 敬長, 義也.

Treat the elders in one’s own family as elders and extend this treatment to the elders in other families; treat the young in one’s own family as young and extend this treatment to the young of other families. 老吾老以及人之老, 幼吾幼以及人之幼.

The “true” ability and knowledge are in contrast to imposed ones, referring to one’s inner potentiality of moral emotion, cognition, and motivation, which grows through a process of nurture and development. Young children spontaneously love their parents (but not other people), implying the hidden reason that they are spontaneously nurtured with love by parents. Suppose the children were abused by cruel parents, they would not have loving feelings toward them.15 They know to respect their elder brothers only after they grow up, implying that they have gone through a process of cognition, during which their elder brothers have showed kindness to them. Suppose the young brothers were treated badly by their elder brothers, they would not have respects to them. Then, these reciprocal, familial loving feelings are extended to unrelated old and young people by both children and parents. Here the moral emotions and conducts of xiao, ti, and ren are neither inborn nature nor imposed by social norms, but rather psychological awareness of moral emotion, cognition, and choice.

As Mencius indicated in other place, the difference between external ritual-ethical norms and internal moral conscience was the heteronomous demand of “acting in conformity with ren and yi” (xing renyi 行仁義) and the autonomous moral practice of “acting from ren and yi” (you renyi xing 由仁義行) (Mencius 4B19). Similarly, in the practice of xiao-filiality, it shifts from “acting in conformity with xiao” to “acting from xiao”. Although both actions were promoted by classical Confucians, their emphasis was placed on the latter. The completion of the internalization of xiao, along with other major concepts, marks the second triumph of humanistic ethics in Chinese religious-intellectual history. Classical Confucians internalized the ritual-ethical norms enforced by religious-political authority to become internal authority of moral agent and thus constructed moral subjectivity and autonomy.

4. Concluding and Prospective Remarks

Xu Shen’s interpretation of xiao as “good in serving one’s parents” and “the young supporting the elder” was later ideas, and xiao originally denoted the activities of making sacrifice to deceased ancestors and inheriting their legacy. These activities were exercised in the Shang dynasty and continued in the Zhou dynasty. Meanwhile, starting with the early Zhou xiao was extended to ethical domain with the humanistic turn from human-spirit relationship to human-human relationship. Xiao was now not only expanded to serve living parents and elders but also established as a ritual-ethical norm that defined people’s familial, social, and hierarchical role duties and regulated their conducts of dealing with interpersonal relationships. The cardinal relationships were gradually increased from that of the father-son and elder-younger brothers to that of ruler-subject, husband-wife, and friend-friend, forming the standard five relationships, which were all patterned on the father-son structure and derived from the core value of xiao, and which were going to last throughout Chinese history. As a result, the religious authority of paranormal ancestral spirits was transferred to social-political authority who enforced the ritual-ethical norm of xiao. From the late Spring and Autumn to Warring States, Classical Confucians on the one hand recognized the importance of compliance with this ritual-ethical norm, and on the other internalized it to become the individual agent’s moral emotion and free choice. In this way, the social-political authority was further transferred to the internal authority of moral autonomy. Although classical Confucians connected xiao-filiality to father with zhong-loyalty to ruler as other contemporary thinkers did, they had not yet used this parallel to strengthen the latter’s autocratic power.

At the beginning of China’s long imperial period, Confucian scholars, especially the authors of the Xiaojing 孝經 (Classic of Filiality), intentionally heightened the religious, political, and ethical functions of xiao-filiality and “extended it to the lord as zhong-loyalty” (zhong ke yiyu jun 忠可移於君) (Rosemont and Ames 2009, p. 113), in order to enhance the latter’s absolute authority in ruling the unified empire. In the Qin-Han periods, unfilial conduct was codified as a crime for severe punishment, and filial act a virtue for honouring/rewarding or selecting/promoting officials (Wakae 1997, pp. 249–82; Cao 2009, pp. 101–7; Yang 2017, pp. 187–203). Accompanying the forever continuing ritual of ancestor sacrifice, “to govern the world by xiao” (Yi xiao zhi tianxia 以孝治天下) had since become a semireligious instrument for maintaining automatic rule, centralized power, and social order throughout China’s long imperial period. Xiao has been the fundamental values of Chinese culture for thousands of years and has influenced every facet of Chinese life and society.

In the modern times, toward the long tradition of xiao culture, there have been mainly three kinds of attitude. The first is mainly held by the May Fourth intellectuals such as Chen Duxiu 陳獨秀, Hu Shi 胡適, Wu Yu 吳虞, and Lu Xun 魯迅, as well as some contemporary scholars. They strongly criticize xiao as the ideological foundation of autocratic system which has repressed Chinese people’s individual freedom and led to selfish and corruption in the legal name of familial interest; they also indicate that many historically recorded and praised conducts of xiao were in fact cruel, hypocritical, and inhumane.16 The second attitude is mainly held by the contemporary New Confucians (Xinrujia 新儒家). They confirm xiao as the foremost virtue of Chinese ethics and extol it as having exerted positive and profound influence in Chinese culture and society, including contribution to the persistence of Chinese civilization and nation. They also believe that xiao can provide an ethical basis for endowing modern life and modernization, while basically refusing any criticism and reformation of the tradition.17 The third attitude, held by a number of scholars, disagrees with both simply negative and positive judgments of xiao, and advocates discarding the zhong-xiao or political-ethical connection that has hindered China’s process of democratization and modernization, while developing genuine parent-child affection and reciprocal duties that help maintain familial and social harmony and order (F. Xu 2002, pp. 55–56, 101–3; Holzman 1998, pp. 198–99; Xiao 2002, pp. 329–51).

In my opinion, the last attitude is a rational, balanced way for dealing with the complicated legacy of the xiao tradition. As discussed above, classical Confucians recognized xiao as both ritual-ethical norm and individual-moral autonomy for the purpose of promoting feelings of loving kindness between parent and child as well as harmonious interpersonal relationship and familial-social order. They had not yet used the xiao-zhong parallel to facilitate absolute loyalty and obedience to automatic ruler and authoritarian government. Therefore, a return to classical Confucian ethical-moral theory concerning the conception of xiao will help us better develop the positive aspect of the tradition.