The Confucian Conception of Self: Collectivist or Relational?

Thomas Moore

doi:10.4312/as.2026.14.1.89-102

Authors

Thomas MOORE University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2026.14.1.89-102

Keywords:

comparative philosophy, Confucianism, relational self, Ren (仁), self-cultivation

Abstract

In this paper, I clarify the Confucian conception of self by distinguishing it from common misrepresentations, most notably its conflation with collectivism, as critiqued by Jana Rošker. These distortions, arguably rooted in the application of inappropriate Western frameworks, portray the Confucian self as self-effacing and subordinate to society. Drawing on key sinological and philosophical work, including that of David Hall, Roger Ames, and Jana Rošker, I argue instead that the Confucian self is relational and processual: constituted through one’s roles and relationships, not erased by them. I develop this interpretation in two stages. First, I show through conceptual analysis how the Confucian self integrates individuality and interdependence by situating personhood in a shared awareness of social roles. Second, I analyse the Analects and Mencius to show how the ideal of ren (仁) embodies ethical self-cultivation as a dynamic, ongoing process. I conclude that the Confucian self is best seen as a shared or social self-consciousness of roles and relations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ames, Roger T. 2021. Human Becomings: Theorizing Persons for Confucian Role Ethics. Albany NY: SUNY Press.

Ames, Roger T. 2018. “Theorising the ‘Person’ in Confucian Ethics.” In Encountering China: Michael Sandel and Chinese Philosophy, edited by Michael J. Sandel, and Paul J. D’Ambrosio, 159–96. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Analects. 2003. Translated by Edward Slingerland. Indianapolis: Hackett.

CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. 2021. “Mental Health Surveillance Among Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, 2021.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (42): 1451–59.

De Los Reyes, Andres, and Kazdin Alan E. 2005 “Informant Discrepancies in the Assessment of Childhood Psychopathology: A Critical Review, Theoretical Framework, and Recommendations for Further Study.” Psychological Bulletin 131 (4): 483–509.

Geertz, Clifford. 1974. “From the Native’s Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 28 (1): 26–45.

Gentz, Joachim. 2018. “Confucianism.” In A Companion to the Religions of Ancient China, edited by J. Gentz, and J. Rüpke, 122–44. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hall, David L., and Roger T. Ames. 1997. Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture. New York: SUNY Press.

Kallio, Timo J. 2017. “The Confucian Concept of Ren (仁) and the Business Context.” Journal of Business Ethics 145 (4): 767–79.

Lai, Karyn L. 2013. “Ren: An Exemplary Life.” In Dao Companion to the Analects, edited by Amy Olberding, 83–94. Dordrecht: Springer.

Mencius. 1970. Translated by D. C. Lau. London: Penguin.

Mojtabai, Ramin, and Mark Olfson. 2024. “National Trends in Mental Health Treatment in Adolescents and Young Adults: Undiagnosed and Untreated Conditions.” Journal of American Psychiatry 181 (2): 123–30.

Munro, Donald J. 1979. Individualism and Holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosemont, Henry. 2018. “How to Think About Morality Without Moral Agents.” In Encountering China: Michael Sandel and Chinese Philosophy, edited by Michael J. Sandel, and Paul J. D’Ambrosio, 159–96. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rošker, Jana S. 2021. Interpreting Chinese Philosophy: A New Methodology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Rošker, Jana S. 2023. Confucian Relationism and Global Ethics: Alternative Models of Ethics and Axiology in Times of Global Crises. Leiden: Brill.

Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zhongyong. 2001. Focusing the Familiar: A Translation and Philosophical Interpretation of the Zhongyong. Translated by Roger T. Ames, and David L. Hall. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.