{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03152218996267109, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006636250518457071, 'mean_word_length': 5.232558139534884, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Confucianisms for a Changing World Cultural Order ed. by Roger T. Ames and Peter D. Hershock (review)

As its title indicates, this edited volume addresses three interrelated concepts: world cultural order, change, and Confucianisms (in the plural). The question the fifteen essays of this volume try to answer is more precisely how Confucianism in its different forms and interpretations may contribute to formulating an alternative for what Michael Nylan in her contribution, “Whither Confucius? Whither Philosophy?”, defined as “the vice of the vulgar mind to be thrilled by bigness” (p. 205) that characterizes the world in the age of global capitalism. In the first part of this volume, “Confucianisms in a Changing World Cultural Order,” a general critique of neoliberalism is formulated, and two alternative social orders—an all-inclusive religious community and a restrictive Confucian community—are presented. The second part, “Different Confucianisms,” juxtaposes neoliberalism and East Asian Confucianisms. The third part, “Clarifying Confucian Values,” attempts to define core Confucian values that might contribute to the creation of a new global cultural paradigm. Reflecting on East Asia’s Confucian past, the fourth and last part of the volume, “Limitations and the Critical Reform of Confucian Cultures,” reflects on the limits of a Confucian world order. In “Rethinking Confucianism’s Relationship to Global Capitalism: Some Philosophical Reflections for a Confucian Critique of Global Capitalism,” Sor-hoon Tan formulates a critique of the neoliberal order based on the early Confucian conviction that the state should take care of everyone’s basic material needs, which is more important than an increase in economic production to the profit of a few and the detriment of many, as well as of education of the people (pp. 11–12). This viewpoint can be read in Lunyu 論語 13.9 and 16.1, or in Mengzi 孟子 3A3. This reference to early Confucianism can also be read as a critique of contemporary China. Its professed return to Confucianism notwithstanding, the road of global capitalism the country has taken has brought about increasing social disparity, ecological problems, and grassroots distrust in politics. It is in this respect striking that while a development toward the rise of capitalism and individualism may not have happened in Confucian China,1 it appears that, as stated by Sor-hoon