Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 1–4  
 
1 
Introduction  
Jana S. ROŠKER

 
The present issue of The Journal of Asian Studies is dedicated to problems linked 
to the specific features of Chinese modernization, as viewed through the lens of 
Modern Confucianism. It contains selected contributions from the international 
symposium, Contemporary Confucianism and Chinese Modernization, Reykjavik, 
7–8 September 2013, which was organized by Geir Sigurðsson, in cooperation 
with the Northern Lights Confucius Institute and the Chinese Studies Department 
of the University of Iceland.  
In international Sinology, this current of thought has been translated with 
various, sometimes colourful terms, which range from Neo-Confucianism, 
Contemporary or Modern Neo-Confucianism, to New, Modern or Contemporary 
Confucianism. The first group, which includes the term “Neo-Confucianism”, is 
impractical because it is often confused with the term that, in Western sinology, 
generally denotes the reformed Confucian philosophies of the Song and Ming 
periods (li xue 理學 or xingli xue 性理 學). A similar confusion can be found in 
Chinese discourses, which commonly designate this current with one of the 
following expressions: 新 儒學, 現代 儒學需, 當代 儒學, 現 代新儒學, 當代 新儒
學, etc. In our view, the Chinese expression 現 代 新 儒 學 is most appropriate, 
given that in China (as opposed to European sinological discourses), the Neo-
Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties has never been associated with the 
concept of New Confucianism 新儒學, and thus the character that signifies “new” 
in this phrase is not problematic. Instead, for the English translation, given that we 
are dealing with philosophies, social theories and ideologies that belong to 
Chinese modernity we have decided to use the term Modern Confucianism in the 
title of this special issue.  
                                                 

 Jana S. ROŠKER, Department of Asian and African Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of 
Ljubljana, Slovenia 
jana.rosker@guest.arnes.si 

Jana S. ROŠKER: Introduction 
2 
Modern Confucianism arose China at the edge of the previous century and was 
later developed further by theorists from Taiwan, and, to a lesser degree, from 
Hong Kong. Unlike the People’s Republic of China, where Confucianism was 
considered to be the “ideology of outdated feudalism” and therefore silenced (at 
least formally) until the 1980s, in Hong Kong and Taiwan, both of which were 
defined by post-colonial social discourses, a number of intellectuals began 
opposing the growing Westernization of their societies already in the 1950s. Due 
to the multilayered cultural, national and political situation in Taiwan, intellectuals 
from that country played an important role in developing this new philosophical 
current from the very outset.  
However, the last two decades have seen intense research and an increasingly 
open debate regarding the postulates and discourses of the new Confucianism 
philosophy also in the People’s Republic. Academic groups such as Research into 
the intellectual current of Contemporary New Confucianism (Xiandai Xin rujia 
sichao yanjiu 現代 新儒家 思潮研究), which was founded in November 1986 by 
the philosophy professors, Fang Keli 方克 立 and Li Jinquan 李錦全, have been 
especially active and influential in this area. Some Modern Confucian scholars in 
the PRC (e.g. Jiang Qing 蒋庆) have criticized Taiwanese Modern Confucianism 
for deviating from the original Confucian principles and being overly influenced 
by Western liberal democracy. These scholars have proposed Constitutional 
Confucianism (also known as Political Confucianism, or Institutional 
Confucianism) as an alternative path for China, within the trilateral parliamentary 
framework. 
Despite these controversies, the revival of Confucian philosophy in the PRC, 
together with increasing interaction among philosophers in China, Hong Kong and 
Taiwan, have the potential of contributing enormously to the reintegration of 
Chinese philosophical life after the politically conditioned divisions of the latter 
half of the 20
th
 century. Furthermore, Confucian thought, from its origins to 
contemporary interpretations, offers both new areas of possible convergence or 
fusion with Western thought, and a platform from which Western philosophy can 
be constructively criticized. Indeed, the Modern Confucian current primarily grew 
out of the search for a synthesis between Western and traditional East Asian 
thought, in order to elaborate a system of ideas and values capable of resolving the 
sociopolitical problems of the modern, globalized world. The scholars belonging 
to this stream sought to reconcile “Western” and “traditional Chinese” values in 

Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 1–4 
 
3 
order to create a theoretical model of modernization that would not be confused or 
equated with “Westernization”. Because they viewed modernization primarily as a 
rationalization of the world, they explored their own tradition for authentic 
concepts that were comparable to certain Western paradigms deemed essential for 
modernization.  
As one of the most influential and important streams of thought in 
contemporary East Asian theory, while also representing a crucial part of the new, 
dominant ideologies in the P.R. China, the so-called Confucian revival is 
considered by many scholars in Chinese studies to be of utmost importance in 
terms of research and investigation. However, while many books and articles on 
this topic are available in Chinese, Western academic studies remain few and far 
between.  
In taking this situation as their point of departure, the authors of the present 
collection analyze the central values of Confucianism, and interpret them within 
the very different Chinese and Taiwanese socio-political contexts in order to 
evaluate their impact on the dominant, contemporary ideologies. The authors also 
examine the main elements that enable the amalgamation of traditional Chinese 
values into the framework of capitalistic ideologies and axiological contexts. The 
present special issue thus not only examines the main Modern Confucian 
philosophical approaches, ideas and methods, but also explores the political, social 
and ideological backgrounds of the current revival and its connections with the 
ideological foundations of East Asian and, most especially, Chinese modernity.  
The contributions to this special issue address four different research areas. 
The volume opens with a foreword in Chinese by Prof. Lee Ming-Huei, member 
of the Academia Sinica in Taiwan and an internationally recognized authority on 
Modern Confucianism. The Chinese text is accompanied by a short abstract and a 
longer summary in English. In focusing on Modern Confucian political theory, the 
author explains the significance of the theory of the “Development of Democracy 
from Confucianism”, as elaborated primarily in the works of the Taiwanese 
Modern Confucians.  
The second section, entitled Modern Confucianism as a New Chinese Ideology, 
consists of articles by Geir Sigurðsson (University of Iceland) and Bart Dessein 
(Ghent University). Sigurðsson’s article analyses the debates surrounding 
Confucianism as a stimulant for economic activity and the recent attempts to 
rehabilitate Confucianism in the PRC. Bart Dessein’s contribution instead 

Jana S. ROŠKER: Introduction 
4 
addresses the issue of whether Modern Confucianism can be regarded as a “civil 
religion with Chinese characteristics”, and focuses on how politico-religious 
narratives that reiterate China’s Confucian tradition serve to create a sense of 
belonging and sharedness in a community. 
The next section is entitled Philosophical Approaches, and consists of articles 
by Jana S. Rošker and Tea Sernelj (both from the University of Ljubljana), who 
explore a number of concepts crucial to Modern Confucian theory. In her essay, 
Jana Rošker explains how the third generation of Taiwanese Modern Confucian 
philosophers changed the framework within which traditional Chinese 
philosophical inquiry had been carried out, and the importance of the concept of 
immanent transcendence within this process. Tea Sernelj’s article instead focuses 
on one of the leading representatives of the second generation, Xu Fuguan 徐復 觀 
(1903–1982), and elucidates some of the key concepts in his philosophical thought. 
In the final section, entitled Confucian Values and the Contemporary World, 
Loreta Poškaitė (Vilnius University) and Monika Gänßbauer (Friedrich-
Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg) introduce some of the multifarious 
connections within this specific area of inquiry. In her article, Loreta Poškaitė 
discusses the role of xiao 孝, one of the central Confucian virtues, in contemporary 
intercultural dialogue, while Monika Gänßbauer explores Zhang Xianglong’s 張祥
龍 idea of a “Special Zone for Confucianism”, and its controversial significance 
for experimental areas in contemporary Confucian discourses.  
Although the authors of the present collection often hold very divergent views 
regarding many aspects of the Confucian revival, they all share a complex 
intellectual culture which enables them to explore the Revival and its manifold 
issues with variety, subtlety, dynamism and an openness to dialogue with Chinese 
philosophy. We hope that the collection before you will contribute to the 
realization of our common goal and that Chinese philosophy will finally assume 
its rightful place in world philosophy. Because Modern Confucian efforts to 
revitalize and reconstruct traditional Confucian thought can also be seen as an 
attempt to counter the dominant ideological trends and preserve Chinese cultural 
identity, the present collection will hopefully also contribute to the development of 
theoretical dialogues between “China” and “the West”.  
 
Jana S. Rošker, Chief Editor