Warning This page contains syntax errors ("cite%20note") caused by a VisualEditor bug. Do not copy/move content from this page until the errors have been repaired. See {{ Warning VisualEditor bug}} for more information.

This user is a student editor in Wesleyan_University/Modern_Chinese_Philosophy_(Spring_2019). sandboxes

Americans’ exposure to Confucianism can be dated back to the accounts of missionaries who traveled to China in the early 19th century. Since the second half of the 20th century, there has been growing scholarly interest in Confucianism in America. Confucianism is often studied under the umbrella of Chinese philosophy, and American scholars of Confucianism are usually professors in the Philosophy or Religion Departments. There have been ongoing controversy in American academia on whether Confucianism should be categorized as a religion, philosophy or a tradition. ^[1]

Contemporary discussion of Confucianism in America is centered around questions of Confucianism's modern relevance in America and its portability to be studied and practiced in a context outside China and East Asia. Confucianism in America has been significantly informed by the emergence of New Confucianism in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan since the 20th century, which advocates for the applicability of Confucianism in a contemporary context in synthesis with Western philosophies. ^[2] Major topics discussed among scholars of Confucianism in America include Confucian Humaneness (ren), Ritual (li), Confucianism in a global cultural dialogue, and Confucianism's relationship with universal values.

Compared to Buddhism, another East Asian tradition that is widely popularized and practiced in America, Confucianism in America has received less attention outside a small circle of academic specialists. ^[3] Apart from occasional lectures on Confucianism, Confucius Institutes across the United States have little influence in promoting Confucian philosophy or Confucianism as a way of life. ^[3] The association of Confucianism with its historical and political expressions that endorsed hierarchical relationships and suppressed individual rights, are often seen as in conflict with the American and universal values of democracy and human rights, which may have hindered Confucianism from achieving a wider influence in America. Nevertheless, contemporary American scholars of Confucianism are striving to explore the dynamic dialogue of Confucianism with universal values and the creative application of Confucian teachings to the everyday-life of modern Americans.

Brief History of the Study of Confucianism in America

The history of scholarship on Confucianism in America can roughly be separated into three phases. The characteristics of Confucian scholarship in each phase reflect the circumstance of Confucianism in China as well as the cultural, political and demographical interactions between China and the United States in that period.

The 1830s to the early 1900s

Since the 1830s, a number of missionaries traveled to China to spread Christianity and left accounts of Confucianism. Among them the prominent onesinclude Elijah Coleman Bridgman (1801-1861), Samuel Wells Williams (1812-1884), and Arthur Henderson Smith (1845-1932). Alongside their missionary work, these missionaries studied Chinese language and familiarized themselves with the Chinese culture. Samuel Wells Williams book The Middle Kingdom (1848) was the first comprehensive scholarly work on China in America. Williams spoke highly of Confucius and regarded The Analects an exceptional book incomparable by any book in history, except The Bible. ^[4] From the 1870s onward, institutions devoted to China studies and the study of Chinese languages started to take root in prestigious universities across the United States, including Yale University, Harvard University, and the University of California. ^[4]

While these American missionaries significantly contributed to the early phases of Confucianism in America, the study of Confucianism was subordinate to their missionary goal and largely limited to the discussion of Confucianism with relation to Christianity from a Christian standpoint.

First half of the 20th century

The general attitudes of American scholars toward Confucianism in this period can be grouped into two strands. One group viewed Confucianism as an inferior culture than the Western culture based off of Christianity and regarded its intrinsic.as the reason for the stagnancy of the Chinese society at the time. This line of thinking was heavily influenced by Max Weber, who attributes the conservative and stagnant elements of Chinese culture to Confucianism. Another school of thought, as represented by Sinologist H.G. Greel, affirmed the value of inter-personal bonds (ren lun) in Confucianism and regards Confucius as one of the most important figures in human history. Greel also argues that Confucianism had played a constructive role in influencing the Enlightenment thinking Europe. He discussed Confucianism in detail in his books Confucius and the Chinese Way (1949) and Birth of China (1936). The increasing interaction between China and America in this time period, especially due to the two World Worlds also sheds light on the importance of studying Confucianism in order to understand China.

Confucianism in early 20th-century China

In comparison to a growing interest in Confucianism in America, the abandonment of the civil-service exam system in 1905 marked a major challenge to the significance of Confucianism in China, as the exam was largely based on mastery of classic Confucian texts. The subsequent collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 and the "New Culture Movement" led by Chinese students and intellectuals also led to a major blow to traditional Chinese values, practices and even the Chinese language. ^[5] In the first half of the 20th century, Chinese intellectuals became increasingly drawn to either liberalism or Marxism as they endeavored to work out what a new China should look like. Nevertheless, some important exceptions who uphold the value of Confucianism, among them were Liang Shuming (1893-1988) , Zhang Junmai (1886-1969) and Xiong Shili (1885-1968), who argued for the continued value of Confucianism in providing a solution to China's ills. The debate in China regarding the value and relevance of Confucianism throughout the 20th century significantly informed the study of Confucianism in America.

Second half of the 20th century

The second half of the twentieth century witnessed a flourishing of Confucian scholarship. A number of New Confucian scholars from mainland China emigrated to the U.S. after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, among them the most prominent ones include Zhang Junmai ( Carson Chang) and He Lin. Their proteges, such as Tu Weiming, Cheng Chungying, Yu Ying-shih, and Liu Shuxian, established a new front of Confucian study in the United States. ^[4] This period also witnessed growing American interest in Confucianism and Chinese culture, marked by watershed events such as the founding of the PRC and the Korean War. The work of Mou Zongsan also significantly informed the Confucian scholarship in America in this period. Mou is often referred to as the Second generation of New Confucians, with other members of the second generation include Tang Junyi and Xu Fuguan. The Confucian scholars who came to America continue to engage with Western philosophers like Hegel and Kant, while re-interpreting classical texts and responding to the global trend of democratization and the rule of law that characterized the second half of century. In America, numerous institutions devoted to the study of China and Confucianism emerged this period. In particular, the John King Fairbank Center of Harvard University, University of Hawaii are at the forefront of Confucian scholarship in America. Prominent American scholars on Confucianism in America in this period include William Theodore de Bary, Benjamin Schwartz, Thomas A. Metzger, David Hall, and Roger T. Ames.

Contemporary Scholarship on Confucianism in America

Terminology

There is ongoing controversy on the categorization of Confucianism in America. The four major ways to categorize Confucianism include Confucianism as philosophy, Confucianism as a tradition, Confucianism as a Religion, and the initiative of substituting "Confucianism" with Ruism.

Confucian Philosophy

The controversy around categorizing Confucianism as a philosophy is tied to the controversy of "Chinese philosophy" and the issue of translation. The Chinese word for philosophy (zhe xue) is a translation from Japanese and only came into being in the early twentieth century. Hu Shi's Outline of a History of Chinese Philosophy (1918) and Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy (1934) were two important books that established the idea of Confucianism as a philosophy. Controversies surrounding categorizing Confucianism as philosophy stems from both China and the West: Western philosophers question the metaphysical sophistication of Confucianism, while objections from China argue that categorizing Confucianism as philosophy does violence to key aspects of the tradition. ^[5]

Confucian Traditions

More than a subject of theoretical inquiry, Confucianism is intimately related to practices that seek to improve oneself and one's world. Although contemporary Confucian scholars in America have different opinions toward the inheritance of rituals, the historical practice of Confucian traditions, American scholars of Confucianism continue to emphasize the practical aspect of Confucianism in orienting one's ethical life and changing the way one perceives and acts in the world. The view of Confucianism as a tradition presents the challenge of how Confucianism should be practiced today. In Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy, Stephen Angle notices the challenge that "It may not be as easy to know how to practice Confucianism today as it once was" because "pre-twentieth century Chinese society had various well-trodden paths to follow, based in part in a deeply ingrained ritualization of life" ^[6] Angle also argues that practice of Confucianism in modern times can actually be benefitted from "critical modern innovations like broad political participation, the rule of law, and the active rooting out of social oppression." ^[6]

Confucian Religion

There some much controversy on whether the Confucianism can be categorized as a religion in the strict sense. For example, Dr. Bin Song of Boston University regards Confucianism as "deeply spiritual, but not religious." ^[7] The majority of North American scholars in Confucian studies, however, agree that the religiosity dimensions of Confucianism are evident. Elements of religiosity in Confucianism identified by American scholars include humans' connection to ultimate concerns, human ability of moral perfection and rituals that embody religious characteristics.

One of the most important works on Confucian spirituality is a two-volume essay collection edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker. Tucker defines a religious worldview as one that “gives humans a comprehensive and defining orientation to ultimate concerns." ^[20] Although Tucker suggests that the discussion on whether Confucianism is a religion may distract us from the real issue of Confucian spirituality, she adds that Confucianism can be categorized as a religion according to Frederick Streng's definition of religion. ^[21] Tucker identifies one of the most important characteristics of Confucian spirituality to be its cosmological orientation, which celebrates "the generativity and creativity of the cosmos in the midst of changing daily affairs.” ^[22] Tucker also sees the continuity of being between all life forms without a radical break between the divine and human worlds as a unique aspect of Confucian religiosity.

American Confucian scholars P.J. Ivanhoe, Robert Neville, and Tu Weiming all join in concert regarding the religious aspect of Confucianism. P.J. Ivanhoe describes Confucian spirituality as a means of integrating oneself into the larger patterns of life embedded in society and nature. “Cultivating the self in order to take one’s place in this universal scheme describes the central task of life.” ^[8] Robert Neville sets out three criteria for a religious tradition––it must have a cosmology, a body of rituals, and a path of spiritual perfection. He argues that all three apply to Confucianism. ^[9] Tu Weiming defines Confucian religiosity as ultimate self-transformation as a communal act and as a faithful dialogical response to the transcendent. He also characterizes Confucian religiosity as the Confucian prescription “for learning to be fully human” ^[10] Confucianism believes that the ultimate meaning of life is realizable through ordinary daily existence. ^[11]

Ruism

The term Ruism is advanced by Dr. Bin Song of Boston University to serve as a substitute for Confucianism. Song argues that the term "Confucianism" implies the absolute authority of Confucius' teachings and that "no one in the Ru tradition would have ever dared to critique Confucius in any conceivable way." ^[7] Instead, he believes that the term "Ruism" better captures the spirit of criticism he sees in the teachings of great Ru thinkers like Confucius, Mencius, and Wang Yangming. In advocating for "Ruism," Song seeks to the shed light on the spiritual dimension of Ruism which encourages autonomy and free criticism, which departs from religious dogmatism. ^[7]

Three Types of Confucian Philosophers in America

Robert C. Neville proposes that scholars of Confucianism in America fall into three major categories: the interpretive philosophers who are devoted to translation, the bridging philosophers who compare Confucianism with Western thought, and normative philosophers who aim to promote Confucianism's contemporary significance in global cultural conversations. ^[12] While there is no sharp line between the three types of philosophers and even an individual philosopher can engage in multiple types of works, the primarily interpretive philosophers were trained most often as historians and textual critics, whereas normative thinkers were trained most often as philosophers, with the bridging philosophers mixed in the middle. ^[13]

Interpretive philosophers

Interpretive are often also translators, whose aim is to make Chinese thought accessible to Westerners. Two most prominent interpretive philosophers are Wing-tsit Chan and William Theodore de Bary.

Wing-tist Chan’s book A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (1963) is one of the most important works on Chinese philosophy in the English-speaking philosophical world. The book contains translations and straightforward explanatory notes of a vast array of major works on Chinese philosophy ranging from the Analects to works of New Confucians such as Xiong Shili and Feng Youlan. Chan's works made it possible for American trained philosophers to engage major ideas of the Chinese philosophic traditions in a critical fashion for the first time.

William Theodore de Bary has taught East Asian thought for many years at Columbia University and has trained many scholars of Chinese philosophy now working in the United States and Canada who have made and are making the translations of important works. He has led the Columbia University Seminar on Neo-Confucianism, edited the Sources of Chinese Tradition (1960) and then edited and contributed to a number of conference volumes, among which the most important are Self and Society in Ming Thought (1970) and The Unfolding of Neo-Confucianism (1975). ^[14]

Bridging philosophers

Bridging philosophers of Confucianism are those who do explicit comparisons of Chinese and Western philosophical ideas, often advocating the former as improvements upon, or at least helpful supplements to, the latter. Herbert Fingarette, David S. Nivison and Philip J. Ivanhoe all belong to this category.

Herbert Fingarette's Confucius: The Secular as Sacred has been an important book on Chinese philosophy for Western philosophers. Fingarette’s thesis is that the Confucian notion of ritual to make social relations possible and to be the medium of ethics. David S. Nivison, a late professor of Stanford University, also contributes to the solution of contemporary Western philosophical problems. Nivison's major work was The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy (1996). Philip J. Ivanhoe, an American historian of Confucianism and philosophy professor, relates Confucian thought to contemporary philosophical problems, mainly ethics. Ivanhoe's book Confucian Moral Self Cultivation (1993) studies six thinkers: Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, and Dai Zhen, showing the contemporary relevance of their thought.

Normative philosophers:

Normative philosophers identify some Chinese school such as Confucianism or Daoism as central to their own heritage but whose main philosophic intent is neither interpretation nor comparison but the normative engagement of contemporary philosophic problems within our own discourse or conversation. Major philosophers who fall within this category include Roger T. Ames, David Hall, Tu Weiming, and Cheng Chungying. Roger T. Ames and the late David Hall were both professors at the University of Hawaii and they have collaborated on three extremely influential volumes: Thinking Through Confucius (1987), Anticipating China (1995), and Thinking from the Han (1998). Roger T. Ames and David Hall's works contrasted Western and Chinese cultures and generalize each to certain essential characteristics. According to Ames and Hall, western culture is based on ordering principles that transcend what is ordered, while Chinese culture is based on "correlative thinking" which identifies the classifications in which things fall and the classifications themselves are arranged in correlative orders. ^[15] Also a professor at the Unviersity of Hawaii,. Cheng Chungying develops a contemporary speculative metaphysics and ethics funded primarily from the Chinese tradition.

The Boston Confucians

Origin

The Boston Confucians refer to a group of philosophers who hold the belief that Confucianism is a portable tradition that can be meaningfully applied to contexts outside its pre-modern Chinese cultural origin. At a Confucian-Christianity conference in 1992, people began to refer to Robert C. Neville, a Confucian scholar and Christian theologian of Boston University and his colleagues as "Boston Confucians." At first the phrase “Boston Confucianism” was used as “affectionate teasing and tongue-in-cheek self-description” ^[16], but it had come to be used as “a semi-serious label" for the particular view the position that  “Confucianism” is not limited to East Asian ethnic application" and that it "has something genuinely interesting and helpful to bring to contemporary philosophical discussions.” ^[17] Major figures of Boston Confucianism are Robert C. Neville, John Berthrong, and Tu Weiming. Dr. Bin Song, a Ph.D student of Robert Neville, has also published a series of articles in The Huffington Post regarding the contemporary relevance of Ruism. ^[18] Among the Boston Confucians, “North-of-the-Charles" school (Tu Weiming and his Harvard colleagues) emphasizes Mencian humaneness and expresses with new subtlety the Confucian worry that the Christian creation myth has some objectionable literal commitments to God as a being separate from the world” ^[19] South-of-the-Charles (Robert Neville and John Berthrong), on the other hand, emphasize Xunzi’s concern for li (ritual propriety), and its potential connections with pragmatic semiotics.

Humaneness (Ren)

The classical Confucian term ren (benevolence or humaneness) is one of the central topics the Confucian ideal as discussed by the Boston Confucians, although different members have nuanced disagreements regarding its implications. Tu Weiming understands ren as the classical Confucian term as the highest human achievement of self-cultivation and the fullest manifestation of humanity. Tu's interpretation of humaneness is in line with Mencius' notion of the inherent goodness of human nature and the continuity of innate human nature with the development of civilized forms. Tu does nevertheless takes note of the "gradual process of extension of love," and the hierarchical expression of our humanity that "ren is most exemplified in our caring toward our relatives (qin qin)." ^[20]Tu also spells out the spiritual dimension in the attainment of humaneness, there is an "inseparability of the Human Way and the Way of Heaven." ^[21]

On the other hand, Robert Neville, although agreeing with Tu on the central importance of humaneness in Confucian thought, echoes Xunzi's concern that people need the help of rituals in order to achieve humanity, as people are born selfish. Xunzi is less confident about the readiness of human nature in developing full-fledged morality, and he emphasizes the importance of environment and the practice of rituals to "set aright" the inborn nature of men. ^[12]

As a theologian, Neville also works on comparing the Confucian concept of ren and the Christian notion of love and notices an agreement between Confucius and Christians that the capacity for love is inborn and definitive of what it means to be human. ^[12]

Ritual Propriety (Li)

The interpretation of ritual propriety among Boston Confucianism can be seen as stemming from two strands of Confucian thinking. While Tu Wei-ming Mencian tradition that humans' feelings toward what is appropriate is inborn, Neville emphasizes Xunzi's account of ritual propriety that the human endowments are underdetermined and thus we have to learn to approach moral perfectness through adopting rituals.

For Tu Weiming, humanity (ren) is the inner essence of human nature, and the heavenly principle (tian li) needs to express itself in external social relations through the practice of ritual propriety ^[21] Tu rejects that li merely refers to structured ceremonies, but rather "it points to a concrete way whereby one enters into communion with others" ^[21] On the other hand, Robert Neville emphasizes the need of ritual propriety to act as a corrective of our emotions. Nevile argues that "our feelings can provide emotive power in all directions, but need learned discrimination to find appropriate objects and appropriate responses." ^[12] Neville thus regards ritual propriety as a necessary condition of ren and needs to be developed prior to people's attainment of ren.

The two perceptions of ritual would have different implications of Confucianism's contributions to the late-modern world. The view of ritual as an external expression of humaneness sees ritual as a constitutive element of human nature defined in its connection with all the rest of nature and thus has an metaphysical implication of contemporary Confucianism. The view of ritual as guiding human behavior, on the other hand, has an ethical implication on Confucianism's concrete guidance in reaching moral perfection.

Civilizational Dialogue

The idea of a civilizational dialogue is advanced by Tu Weiming in regard to Confucianism's contemporary global relevance. Tu identifies the twenty-first century as a kind of new “Axial Age,” in which conditions of cultural and religious pluralism can foster constructive dialogue between traditions and civilizations. ^[22] The concept of a civilization dialogue was also a response to the theory of the “clash of civilizations” proposed by Samuel P. Huntington, who argues that international conflict in the post-Cold War era was primarily caused by conflicts between people’s cultural and religious identities. ^[23] In contrast, Tu is hopeful that with "tolerance, recognition, and respect," there is the possibility for the two dialogical partners to "take the other as reference" and engage in mutual learning. ^[22]

Tu sees Confucianism as having unique value in the civilizational dialogue and must engage in such dialogue to sustain its relevance as a living tradition. Tu proposes that the development of Confucianism can be separated into three epochs: classical Confucianism (traced back to early thinkers such as Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi), Neo-Confucianism (during the Song and Ming dynasties), and New Confucianism (dating to the 20th century). The defining characteristic of the Third epoch of Confucianism is precisely its participation in a global civilization dialogue. Specifically, Tu regards Confucian humanism as an important spiritual resource in responding to global challenges such as ecological crisis, atomization of individuals and egoistic rationality. ^[24] Confucianism would also benefit from its participation in such a civilizational dialogue. Tu writes that “If the well-being of humanity is its central concern, Confucian humanism in the third epoch cannot afford to be confined to East Asian culture. A global perspective is needed to universalize its concerns. Confucians can benefit from dialogue with Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologians, with Buddhists, with Marxists, and with Freudian and post-Freudian psychologists.” ^[25]. Moreover, Tu thinks that the third epoch of Confucianism must respond to four aspects of challenges from the West: (1) the spirit of scientific inquiry, (2) democracy, (3) Western religiosity and its sense of transcendence, and (4) the Freudian psychological exploration of human nature. ^[20]

Controversy

Bryan Van Norden in his book review of Boston Confucianism, questions the originality of Boston Confucians' argument on the portability of Confucian tradition. Van Norden suggests that the portability of Confucianism had already been widely acknowledged prior to the publishing of the book. The emergence of Neo-Confucianism in Song-Ming dynasties and the spread of Confucianism to other parts of Asia were all examples of Confucianism as an evolving and portable tradition. In Van Norden's words, "Neville's label is original, but the concept is not." ^[26]

Stephen C. Angle, a Confucian philosopher and professor of Philosophy and East Asian Studies at Wesleyan University, in his essay "American Confucianism: Between Tradition and Universal Values" argues that Boston Confucianism has only achieved limited impact in promoting Confucian values and practices in America. ^[3]

There has also been criticism from the Chinese Confucian world against Tu Weiming's use of Western religious concepts and terminology in describing Confucianism, which they deem as not applicable to Confucianism. ^[20]

Confucianism and Universal Values

Confucianism's relationship with universal values such as democracy, personal autonomy and egalitarianism has been a central topic taken up by contemporary American scholars of Confucianism. Informed by three generations of New Confucian thinkers who ponder Confucianism's synthesis with Western philosophies and Confucianism's engagement with universal values, contemporary American scholars of Confucianism continue to explore the compatibility between Confucianism and universal values, as well as the unique contributions of Confucianism to world philosophy.

Progressive Confucianism

Besides Tu Weiming's notion of "civilizational dialogue" discussed in a previous section, the concept of progressive Confucianism, as coined by Wesleyan Professor and Confucian philosopher Stephen Angle, sheds new light on the engagement of Confucianism with universal values and the evolving nature of Confucianism itself. By progressive Confucianism, Angle seeks to express a two dimensional meaning. First, it helps to describe the core Confucian commitment to individual and collective moral progress, and second, Progressive Confucianism believes that ethical insight can lead to progressive political change, which in turn leads to greater realization of our potential for virtue. ^[5] Angle's prescription of Confucianism toward progressive political change is in line with "a kind of constitutional democracy," but he stresses that Progressive Confucianism is much more than constitutional democracy alone. Angle also offers a creatively Confucian interpretation of ritual, an aspect of Confucianism often criticized for its association with hierarchical relationships, blind filial piety and oppression. He argues that "Progressive Confucians must stand against oppression, notwithstanding historical Confucian complacency concerning many types of oppression" ^[5] For Angle, these progressive changes in political institutions and social relationships is not only compatible with Confucianism but integral to upholding the essence of Confucianism, which is "the ideal of all individuals developing their capacities for virtue -- ultimately aiming at sagehood -- through their relationships with one another and with their environment." ^[5]

Critiques

Tongdong Bai, a professor of Philosophy at Fudan University, critiques Angle's concept of Progressive Confucianism that there may be more alternatives to Confucian political institutions other than liberal democracy. He argues that contemporary Confucian political thinkers, such as Daniel Bell, Jiang Qing and himself don't believe that history ends with liberal democracy," but would "try to offer alternatives, such as a hybrid regime that combines democratic elements with meritocratic elements." ^[27]

Another piece of criticism by Leigh Jenco argues that Angle's project of creating a modernized Confucianism gives not enough consideration to the irony that "Confucianism becomes relevant and “modern” only to the extent that it can incorporate certain prior commitments to such key values as rule of law and human rights," which reflects a kind of power struggle between political ideologies. ^[28]

Online Resources to Engage with Confucianism in America

1. Ruist Association of America is founded on the mission to shares the treasures of the Ruist tradition with anyone who desires to live better lives and improve themselves, their families, their communities, and the world. On their website one can find links to translations and adaptations of Classic Confucian Texts, blog posts on the compatibility of Confucianism with American values and educational res
2. Online teaching translations of the Analects, The Four Books, Mencius, The Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean, among other Classic Confucian texts created by Professor Robert Eno of Indiana University can be find here.
3. Stone Chimes is an online English adaptation of the Analects created by Benjamin Butina.
4. “Warp, Weft and Way”. is a vibrant website that covers interests and activities in Chinese and comparative philosophy. A list of graduate programs on Chinese Philosophy offered in English can be found here. Active contributors include Stephen Angle of Wesleyan University, Ivanhoe,
5. "Progressive Confucianism," is a website managed by Professor Stephen Angle of Wesleyan University, where contemporary scholarship on the progressive meanings of Confucianism, Confucianism's conversations with liberalism and feminism, etc., can be found.
6. Dr. Bin Song's personal website documents his personal practice of Ruism, his Ruist pedagogy, and reviews of Confucianism-related books, etc.
7. There are also active Facebook Groups that discuss Confucianism and its relevance in America. Friends from Afar: A Confucianism Group was started in 2015 and Ruism Discussion Group: Confucianism in America was started in 2016.

Bibliography

1. Angle, Stephen C. (2015) "美国儒学：在传统与普世价值之间” 传统与启蒙：中西比较的视野
2. Angle, Stephen C. (2012). Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy: Toward Progressive Confucianism. Polity.
3. Adler, Joseph. (2014) "Confucianism as a Religious Tradition: Linguistic and Methodological Problems, " presented to the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, National Taiwan University (Taipei) and the Department of Philosophy, Tunghai University (Taichung).
4. Berthrong, John. (2013) "Christian-Confucian Dialogue," The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-religious Dialogue. John Wiley&Sons.
5. Cai, Degui. (2005). "American Confucianism," in Journal of Chinese Philosophy
6. Ivanhoe, Philip J. (2000). Confucian Moral Self-Cultivation. Hackett Publishing Company.
7. Neville, Robert Cummings. (2000). Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World. Albany: SUNY Press
8. Tu, Wei-ming. (1989). Way, Learning, and Politics: Essays on the Confucian Intellectual. Institute of East Asian Philosophies.
9. Tu, Wei-ming. (1998) Humanity and Self-Cultivation: Essays in Neo-Confucian Thought. Cheng&Tsui. publishing house.
10. Tu, Wei-ming. (2012). "A Spiritual Turn in Philosophy" in Journal of Philosophical Research, 389-401.
11. Tu, Wei-ming. (2005). “Toward a Dialogical Civilization: Identity, Difference and Harmony," Selected Papers on Beijing Forum 2005.
12. Tucker, Mary Evelyn (2004). Confucian Spirituality. The Crossroad Publishing Company.
13. Van Nordan, Bryan. (2003). "Reviewed Work(s): Boston Confucianism: Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World by Robert Cummings Neville." Philosophy East and West, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 413-417
14. 程志华（2017），"由'儒学在美国'到'美国的儒学'：百年美国儒学发展脉络, 深圳大学学报（人文社会科学版）
15. 杜维明（2002），"全球伦理的儒家诠释," 文史哲 2002 年第6 期(总第273 期)

See Also

Confucianism

Chinese Philosophy

Religion in China

References