File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Classic Confucian Thought and Political Meritocracy: A Text-based Critique

TitleClassic Confucian Thought and Political Meritocracy: A Text-based Critique
Authors
Keywordsclassic Confucianism
comparative political theory
Confucian democracy
Confucian meritocracy
Confucian political theory
Issue Date2021
Citation
Dao, 2021, v. 20, n. 3, p. 433-458 How to Cite?
AbstractRecent debates on Confucian meritocracy largely center around outright normative critiques rather than its textual basis. The unflattering upshot is the lack of attention to a mode of critique that scrutinizes Confucian meritocracy by questioning the way meritocrats invoke Confucian concepts and values. Focusing on three meritocrats—Bai Tongdong 白彤東, Daniel A. Bell, and Kang Xiaoguang 康曉光, this article ventures a text-based normative approach by examining continuities and ruptures between core meritocratic arguments they make, and the messages conveyed by Confucian masters. The core argument that I advance is that the meritocratic thesis about the political division of labor does not mesh with the classic Confucian understandings of voluntariness and political authority, which generates uneasy normative consequences for Confucian meritocracy. Ultimately, classic Confucianism does not provide a conceptually secure platform for the meritocratic part of Confucian meritocracy as its ardent advocates claim.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316592
ISSN
2022 Impact Factor: 0.4
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.209
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJin, Yutang-
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-14T11:40:49Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-14T11:40:49Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationDao, 2021, v. 20, n. 3, p. 433-458-
dc.identifier.issn1540-3009-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316592-
dc.description.abstractRecent debates on Confucian meritocracy largely center around outright normative critiques rather than its textual basis. The unflattering upshot is the lack of attention to a mode of critique that scrutinizes Confucian meritocracy by questioning the way meritocrats invoke Confucian concepts and values. Focusing on three meritocrats—Bai Tongdong 白彤東, Daniel A. Bell, and Kang Xiaoguang 康曉光, this article ventures a text-based normative approach by examining continuities and ruptures between core meritocratic arguments they make, and the messages conveyed by Confucian masters. The core argument that I advance is that the meritocratic thesis about the political division of labor does not mesh with the classic Confucian understandings of voluntariness and political authority, which generates uneasy normative consequences for Confucian meritocracy. Ultimately, classic Confucianism does not provide a conceptually secure platform for the meritocratic part of Confucian meritocracy as its ardent advocates claim.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofDao-
dc.subjectclassic Confucianism-
dc.subjectcomparative political theory-
dc.subjectConfucian democracy-
dc.subjectConfucian meritocracy-
dc.subjectConfucian political theory-
dc.titleClassic Confucian Thought and Political Meritocracy: A Text-based Critique-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11712-021-09789-6-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85110588497-
dc.identifier.volume20-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage433-
dc.identifier.epage458-
dc.identifier.eissn1569-7274-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000673681100001-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats