Philosophy and Intercultural Communication: The Phenomenon of a Human Being in the Confucian Tradition
Keywords:Confucianism, human being, human nature, humanism, intercultural communication
Purpose. This paper aims to investigate the phenomenon of a human being within the Confucian tradition as well as its interpretations from intercultural perspective. Theoretical basis. One of the ways to understand the deepest level of the intercultural dialogue is to reveal the interpretations of a human being in philosophical traditions, since they refer to the formation of personality and identity within a given culture including interpersonal, intergroup, and intercultural relations. Humanism based on the unity of Human and Heaven runs like a red thread through the philosophical teachings of Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming defining the ideas of human nature, his/her duties, his/her place and roles in society that shaped the Chinese mentality. Originality. Quite often, Chinese concepts (for example, human dignity beyond the ideas of democracy and mass political participation, guanxi, mianzi) are incomprehensible to the representatives of the Western civilization, which leads to the challenges in intercultural communication. The interpretation of these ideas in the context of Confucianism allows to understand them from the perspective of Others and expand the set of patterns of cultural perception. This ultimately leads to the awareness that there are many social, political, cultural realities, which we perceive through the lens of our own concepts and attitudes. The participants of an intercultural dialogue realize that each of them has a unique experience, own way of posing a problem and resolving it, and no one is better or worse. Conclusions. Confucian philosophy shaped the worldview of Chinese people, defined values, goals, meanings, attitudes, communication models, which affected all spheres of Chinese life and culture. The study of the philosophical heritage of the great Chinese civilization enhances the cultural competence of the intercultural communicators and expands the field of dialogue to the level of global communication.
Chan, W.-T. (Trans.). (1969). A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press. (in English)
Chua, Y. J. (2022). Harmonising with Heaven and Earth: Reciprocal Harmony and Xunzi’s Environmental Ethics. Environmental Values, 31(5), 555-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/096327122X16386102423985 (in English)
Confucius. (2017). The Analects (J. Legge, Trans.). Digireads.com Publishing. (in English)
Danylova, T. V. (2013). Overcoming the Cultural Differences: Parable as a Means of Intercultural Dialogue. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (3), 42-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2013/14318 (in English)
Danylova, T. (2014). Born Out of Nothingness: A Few Words on Taoism. Research Revolution. International Journal of Social Science & Management, 3(1), 1-6. (in English)
Danylova, T. V. (2016). The Theory of Civilizations Through the Lens of Contemporary Humanities. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (9), 55-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2016/72231 (in English)
Herzog, C. (2010). Intercultural communication conflicts. GRIN Verlag. (in English)
Kang, B. (2022, April 19). The tradition of saving face is evolving. China Daily. Retrieved from https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202204/19/WS625e030ba310fd2b29e57af3.html (in English)
Katzenstein, P. J. (2018). The Second Coming? Reflections on a Global Theory of International Relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11(4), 373-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poy012 (in English)
Khmil, V. V. (2016). Ambiguous Janus of Modern Democracy. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (9), 47-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2016/72228 (in English)
Kipnis, A. B. (1997). Producing Guanxi: Sentiment, Self, and Subculture in a North China Village. Duke University Press. (in English)
Lao Tzu. (2011). Tao Te Ching (G.-F. Feng, J. English, & T. Lippe, Trans.). Vintage. (in English)
Milojević, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative Foresight. Futures, 73, 151-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007 (in English)
Mitter, R. (2016). Modern China: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. (in English)
Perkins, F. (2022). The Status of the Human in Classical Chinese Philosophy. In K. Hubner (Ed.), Human: A History (pp. 76-101). Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190876371.003.0005 (in English)
Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R., & Swart, R. (2002). Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute. (in English)
Scarpari, M. (2003). The Debate on Human Nature in Early Confucian Literature. Philosophy East and West, 53(3), 323-339. (in English)
Soles, D. E. (1999). The nature and grounds of Xunzi’s disagreement with Mencius. Asian Philosophy. An International Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, 9(2), 123-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09552369908575494 (in English)
Stefon, M. (2016). Junzi. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/junzi (in English)
Suh, J. (2020). The Confucian doctrine of the Mean, the optimality principle, and social harmony. Society and Economy, 42(1), 59-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2020.00004 (in English)
Tian, F. F. (2020). Is guanxi unfair? Market reform and the public attitude toward guanxi in urban China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-020-00138-3 (in English)
Torchinov, E. (2017). Puti filosofii Vostoka i Zapada. Poznanie zapredelnogo. St. Petersburg: Palmira. (in Russian)
Wen, H. (2010). One and Many: Creativity in Whitehead and Chinese Cosmology. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 37(1), 102-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2009.01567.x (in English)
Zhang, Q. (2000). The Idea of Human Dignity in Classical Chinese Philosophy: A Reconstruction of Confucianism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 27(3), 299-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0301-8121.00019 (in English)
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2023 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).