Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Some Questions on Confucian Relationality:Reading Human BecomingsDavid Elstein (bio)Human Becomings: Theorizing Persons for Confucian Role Ethics. By Roger T. Ames. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2021.This recent book by Roger Ames continues his (and Henry Rosemont's) project of articulating and defending the interpretation of Confucian thought using the category "role ethics." This project perhaps originated with Rosemont's 1991 article "Rights-Bearing Individuals and Role-Bearing Persons" and more recently continued with Ames' Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary (2011) and their jointly authored Confucian Role Ethics: A Moral Vision for the 21st Century? (2016). In Human Becomings, Ames expands on what he calls "a focus-field, narrative, and relationally constituted conception of persons" (p. xii). That is, the view of personhood that constitutes the foundation for role ethics. In a sense, this description is too modest, as Ames extends this ontology far beyond persons to all events, continuing to develop a process cosmology that describes the world in general.Over many years, Ames has forged an innovative and influential theoretical interpretation of Confucian philosophy. As an occasional critic of Ames, I appreciate this book tremendously for the way he articulates his vision of how to approach Chinese philosophy, his careful construction of his interpretation, and how he answers questions and objections concerning Confucian role ethics. It is a very rich book that merits careful study, and even in an expanded review such as this I will have to be selective in the points that I address.Ames has developed role ethics and the associated view of relationally constituted persons in part because he believes it is the best way to understand Confucian philosophy on its own terms instead of uncomfortably shoehorning it into existing Western philosophical categories (most commonly, virtue ethics in other Anglophone scholarship). One of his motives is to take Chinese philosophy on its own terms free from the distortions introduced by relying on familiar categories (pp. 20–21). The most important such distortion is that the individual is the starting point for philosophizing. One of Ames' main points in the book is that it is very hard to escape the assumption of the discrete, independent, and autonomous individual when [End Page 172] thinking in familiar Western categories, whether of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, or deontology (p. 46). We must rather appreciate how different Confucianism is.However, he has another goal beyond proffering a superior interpretation of Confucian philosophy. Foundational individualism is also the ultimate cause for what Ames calls the "perfect storm" we find ourselves in: the combination of environmental, economic, social, and political problems that are rooted in misplaced individualism, and that cannot be resolved without deep reconsideration of our values and indeed ourselves (pp. 12–14). Hence, it is not merely that the Confucian relational person is different, but in making relations the basic category the Confucian conception is superior and presumably we would do well do adopt it. One gets a sense of the scope of Ames' argument here.There is much in this book I want to respond to and question, and so I will forego much summary. Instead, I will raise a series of questions about parts of the argument and, in the course of discussing these, touch on some of the main points of the book. I will be questioning a series of related claims that I believe are the heart of what Ames wants to demonstrate: a relationality or process cosmology (not substance ontology) is fundamental to Confucian thought; this relational view naturally implies or entails role ethics, not virtue ethics or deontology; relational persons and role ethics together are a better account of our moral life and will go a considerable way toward resolving the problems caused by foundational individualism. In response, I want to raise the following questions:1. Is relationality truly a part of original Confucian thought?2. Does relationality rule out any notion of essential human nature, and does it necessarily imply or entail role ethics?3. Is relationality true or merely a useful way of thinking (if these can be distinguished)? Do we know that it is useful?4. Is there anything in Confucian role ethics that a...