CONFUCIANISM AND THE FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP

After Confucius, the second best known sage of Confucianism is Mencius, the Latinized version of the name Meng-tzu. In accordance with the Confucian goal of self-cultivation, and to bring discipline, harmony, and order to society, he discussed the importance of five relationships: father-son, ruler-subject, husband-wife, old-young, and friend-friend. Today, I would like to talk about the father-son relationship.

When everyone knows his place and acts accordingly, order prevails. That applies at the familial level as well as at the societal level. There is no room left for confusion. If successive generations are able to teach individuals how to behave, then tradition takes over. The delineation of a person’s role in a particular relationship becomes unnecessary, because the rules have already been set.

Claiming the system degenerates into the blind acceptance of authoritarian behavior, critics of the five relationships argue against it. If son must always obey father, subject obey ruler, wife obey husband, young obey old, and poor obey rich, then it is true that fairness and justice are absent from those relationships, and authoritarianism rules. However, that is not what Mencius envisioned. For example, in the father-son relationship “Love between father and son is intended to show that the proper relationship between them is mutual affection rather than one-way obedience” (Wei-ming, 1993, p. 188).

Mencius believed that a son’s love for his mother was a natural by-product of that relationship, while love between father and son required cultivation. Although both fathers and mothers should teach children how to behave, the father figure is usually the stricter of the two. Therefore, when it is necessary to correct a son on serious issues, the father should do it. Doing so, however, can bring resentment and seriously affect the bond of love between father and son. A father may accuse the son of some fault, and the son may angrily turn around to bring up some deficiency in the father’s own behavior. To avoid these situations and to avoid the loss of parental love, Confucian families used to exchange sons for instruction. Let my neighbor admonish my son, and I will do the same while teaching his son (Wei-ming, 1993, p.188).

What do you think? From our modern and westernized point of view, can we learn from Mencius idea of the father-son relationship?

First, we are dealing with a male-chauvinistic society. Mencius does not bring up the father-daughter relationship at all, because he takes it for granted that the daughters are there to obey and serve the father. They do not have to go out into the world and make a living. They will take care of the household chores while they are young and after they are married—when the new boss will be their husbands.

Second, I do not want my neighbor teaching any of my children. The reason is, I do not know my neighbor’s values or principles. Why was it a good option in those times? It must be that Confucian families shared the same values or principles. Therefore, any adult male in the group was capable of imparting those ideas on the young.

It would be a good thing for America if we nurtured a core of values that we can teach all our children and that would become part of our tradition. The argument for the separation of church and state does not apply here. I am not considering the propagation of religious ideas. What I have in mind is the teaching of civic duties and responsibilities. We should all have a good idea what these are.

To teach proper conduct to our young would be also beneficial. There is much disrespect in our society on the part of young people. I know it is not all young people but still, a significant number. Just go out in public, to the streets, to the malls, and watch the rampant misbehavior of some little ones. Impudent behavior occurs not only toward parents, but also against anybody their elder. They do not respect parental authority, and they do not respect the wisdom accumulated by those older than they are.

It should be obvious to an impartial observer that our society is failing in this regard. Many of our schools and a significant number of parents are not doing a good job educating children. Call them ignorant or call them irresponsible, but some parents just do not care. Then, there is little or no discipline in most of our schools, especially public schools. The adoption of liberal policies is to blame. Laws or regulations that prevent teachers from exerting proper authority over their classes foment anarchism. When students engage in serious misbehavior, the punishment rarely fits the crime. The parents do not help either, when they fail to support the corrective measures good teachers undertake.

No, I do not favor spanking by teachers, but I think it is a proper last option for a father or a mother facing an unruly child. In the home, parents should teach children by example. Fathers and mothers should earn their children’s respect. However, if a child does not reciprocate correct behavior on the part of ert* parents, it is time to use grounding. It is time to take away privileges and whatever things he or she enjoys watching or doing.

In extreme cases, when a child is disrespectful by angrily confronting and yelling at a parent, and by failing to heed a couple of warnings to stop that behavior, then I believe ert* is due a good smack in the rear end. That is an acceptable form of teaching, and not child abuse. The government should not have any laws preventing parents from issuing discipline in that manner. Only when physical punishment becomes ubiquitous and obviously harmful to the child’s welfare, should the government step in.

I remember watching one of those nature programs on the Discovery channel. A lion was resting peacefully, probably half-sleep, when this cub approached him. The little one began to play with the big lion. It would climb over here, step down over there, lick here, place its paws there and, in short, would not let the lion rest. The big lion put up with this situation until he could take it no more. A blow with one paw and a big roar was all it took, for the cub to learn the lesson. Here, the cub was not behaving disrespectfully. It was just being playful. All the same, the teaching method worked. As human beings capable of communicating through language, we hope that is all we need to teach our young. When language and good intentions fail, however, that good smack in the rear end may do the job.

*ert is a gender-neutral article inclusive of both male and female subjects. Instead of saying, “...then I believe he or she is due a good smack in the rear end,” I say, “...then I believe ert is due a good smack in the rear end.”

Bibliography: Wei-ming, T. (1993). Confucianism. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.) Our Religions (pp.141-227). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.