Back to Masters of Chiasmus

Masters of Chiasmus (Part 2): Confucius

Confucius (c. 551-479 B.C.)

Like Aristotle and a number of ancient Greek thinkers, Confucius believed that people should shun extremes and live their lives according to what we in the West call a Golden Mean, a preferable middle course between two unacceptable extremes (e.g., courage is a noble middle course between the extremes of cowardice and rashness). When it came to personal qualities, Confucius also liked to see a blending of many qualities in the same person, as opposed to the development of just one. When a person was overdeveloped in one way, and underdeveloped in another, he saw a problem:

"When nature exceeds culture, we have the rustic. When culture exceeds nature, we have the pedant." Analects—6.16.

In this passage, he argues that a reliance on natural abilities to exclusion of formal learning—and vice versa—are both to be avoided. I've also seen the passage translated as follows:

Check out the word literatus in the last translation. I did a double-take when I first saw it; and then I realized it was the singular form of a familiar word: literati. This particular translation comes from Thomas Cleary's 1992 book, The Essential Confucius.

Here, Confucius returns to the theme of the prior entry, as he answers the question, "A gentleman is all nature; what can art do for him?" (sometimes presented as, "A gentleman is a gentleman by virtue of the qualities he is born with; what role does culture play?"). His point is that natural gifts and cultural knowledge are both essential, and neither one alone is sufficient. In the language of Western psychology, he is saying that both heredity and environment are important. To remind his disciples that good birth is not in itself sufficient to make a gentleman, he added: "Remove the fur from a tiger or panther, and what is left looks like the hairless hide of a dog or sheep."

Another translation of his reply goes this way:

Every language is capable of something I have been calling chiastic shorthand, which is a way of signaling a chiastic inversion without using all of the actual words. In English we do it with expressions like vice versa or "the reverse is true." The Chinese language enables people to do it as well:

That is, petty people foster what is bad in others, and not what is good. I've also seen the passage translated in these ways:

Here's another chiastic Confucius saying that had me scratching my head when I first came upon it:

When I went to some other translations for help, I became even more confused. Look over these additional renderings and see what they do for you:

I'm still not sure of the exact meaning, but I believe Confucius may be saying that exceptional people can have smooth and harmonious relationships with others without being phony or disingenuous. Inferior people, on the other hand, can have superficially good relationships with people because they say and do the proper things, but it doesn't go much deeper than that. Expressed in modern-day language, we might say it this way:

Or maybe he means:

These are only speculations on my part, but they illustrate another interesting thing about chiasmus. Once you get into a chiastic frame of mind, you can go on and on (and while this can drive other people nuts if carried to excess, it can be a wonderful trip to take on your own). By the way, if you know any Confucian scholars, ask them what they think about this particular passage. If you learn anything new, please send it along.

Here's another Confucian saying that has clear implications for the effective management of people:

This chiastic sentiment is actually embedded in a slightly longer passage. Here are a few translations of the complete passage (I'll highlight the chiastic portion):

"The superior man is easy to serve, but difficult to please, for he can be pleased by what is right, and he uses men according to their individual abilities. The inferior man is difficult to serve, but easy to please, for you can please him (by catering to his weaknesses) without necessarily being right, and when he comes to using men, he demands perfection."

"Cultivated people are easy to work for but hard to please. If you try to please them in the wrong way, they are not pleased. When they employ people, they consider their capacities. Petty people are hard to work for but easy to please. Even if you please them by something that is wrong, they are still pleased. When they employ people, they expect everything."

"The true gentleman is easy to serve, yet difficult to please. For if you try to please him in any manner inconsistent with the Way, he refuses to be pleased; but in using the services of others he only expects of them what they are capable of performing. Common people are difficult to serve, but easy to please. Even though you try to please them in a manner inconsistent with the Way (of virtuous living), they will still be pleased; but in using the services of others they expect them (irrespective of their capacities) to do any work that comes along."

What do all these translations suggest? And what are the management implications? To me it's fairly obvious, and here's how I might express it in modern parlance:

"Good bosses are easy to work for, but difficult to please. They have an easy, agreeable manner, but are not fully pleased unless we perform to the best of our abilities. Bad bosses are difficult to work for, but easy to please. Their emotional immaturity makes them susceptible to fawning or flattery, which is easy to do, but can be very distasteful."

Notice the two separate examples of chiasmus in this next observation, which also has many implications for modern life:

"A man of worth can always talk, but talkers are not always men of worth. Love is always bold, though boldness is found without love." Analects—14.5

In the first portion, Confucius is saying that talk is cheap unless it comes from people who can back up their beautiful words with action. I believe Shakespeare had the same thing in mind when he penned the words: "Action is eloquence." In the second portion, Confucius cautions against action for action's sake, especially when some form of caring or compassion does not accompany it.

I've also seen the passage translated as follows:

I also found a quote book a few years ago that included a translation of the second sentence only, and presented it this way:

The disciple Tzu-Kung once asked the Sage, "Can one word cover the whole duty of man or serve as a principle for guiding the conduct of man?" Confucius thought for a moment and answered:

This ancient ethical maxim is strikingly similar to an ethical precept that has emerged independently in every culture of the world. We in the West, of course, call it the Golden Rule. It's one of the most famous chiastic sayings in history:

Sometimes the rule is laid out in positive form, as when Aristotle said, "We should behave to our friends as we would wish our friends to behave to us." And sometimes it's laid out in negative form, as when Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged," or when Hillel said, "What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor." The Confucius version is also laid out in negative form, as is clear in these two additional translations:

Chiastic versions of the Golden Rule show up twice more in the Analects. In 5.12, a pupil of Confucius says, "What I don't want others to do to me, I do not want to do to others." And in 12.2, Confucius says that one way to define love is "not to do unto others what we would not they should do unto us."

Here's another Confucius quote that puzzled me at first:

"It is not truth that makes man great, but man who makes truth great." Analects—15.28

This is the way the quote has been traditionally translated, and here are some similar translations:

These translations were puzzling to me because Confucius was not the kind of guy to talk about ultimate Truth, as he was more interested in ethics, the way people lived their lives on this earth. Then I found a few more translations of the same passage:

Now things began to make a little more sense. In China, "The Way" is the English translation of the word Tao, as in the famous Tao Te Ching ("The Book of Changes"). "The Way" is somewhat difficult to translate into English, but is probably most easily understood as meaning "The Virtuous Way" or "The Way in Which Life Is Best Lived." With these translations, it became apparent that Confucius was not speaking so much about Ultimate Truth as he was about The Virtuous Life. His point, I believe, is that the most wonderful ethical precepts are only a blueprint, and that people must translate those designs into action as they live out their lives with other people.

This brings our examination of "The Chiastic Confucius" to an end.

drmardy.com   copyright © 1999-2008 by Dr. Mardy Grothe.