Ming (Name) as the Bond of Individual and Community from the Perspective of Confucian Communitarianism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article engages with an important question in Confucian philosophy and offers a new perspective on the relationship between individuals and community. In addition, the article's argumentative structure is clear, and you show solid knowledge of Confucian philosophy. Therefore, I recommend the article for publication.

In the remaining part, I have indicated two minor points that, in my opinion, can strengthen your argument further.

1.       Communitarianism

Communitarianism seems to go out of focus in Sections 4 and 5. Without a direct engagement with communitarian ideas, readers may wonder whether you really ‘analyze the similarity between Confucianism and communitarianism from the perspective of ming’ as you state in the Conclusion section.

To avoid this problem, I would include just a few sentences at the end of these two sections. For instance, in the third-last paragraph of Section 4, you can link the Confucian idea of a role-based person with communitarianism. You can elaborate on the point that this conception of person can develop into a unique community ideal, perhaps ‘a role-based ideal of community’, which is quite different from the one elaborated by Western communitarians.

Similarly, it would be reasonable to bring communitarianism into the discussion in Section 5. For example, you can add a few sentences to explain the Confucian approach to human rights vis-à-vis the main Western communitarian views on human rights.

2.       Hierarchy

 

The idea that fen has ‘a very distinct hierarchical attribute’ in Section 4 seems to contradict your statement that ‘the Confucian claim on “name” does not necessarily imply a defence of hierarchy’ on page 11. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. In response to your comments, I have made the following revisions:

1. In the third-last paragraph of section 4, I improve my argument on the relationship between individual and community in the discussion of ming as fen (role). Meanwhile, I quoted some words from McIntyre and Sandel to enhance the comparative character of this paper.
2. At the beginning of section 5, I take a completely different approach from the first manuscript, which is introducing the idea that the Confucian “thick” concept of the subject includes rights in a direct contrast between communitarianism and Confucianism.
3. In the third-last paragraph of section 5, I try to show that Confucianism, like communitarianism, advocates that rulers should protect the “positive rights” of the people by quoting the viewpoint of Walzer.
4. As for the contradiction on the hierarchy you mentioned, I have revised the expression, that is, “the Confucian claim on ‘name’ has something beyond the defense of hierarchy.” In my opinion, the Confucian notion of fen does imply a claim to hierarchy, especially in the development of Confucianism after the Han dynasty. This is a criticism that Confucianism is difficult to get rid of. However, if we look in the ming itself, and affirm that it has virtue and behavior requirements for those to whom it refers, especially the rulers, then we cannot simply conclude it as a defense of hierarchy but has two sides, one is the preservation of the hierarchy, the other is the possibility of breaking through it. Mencius's claim on King Wu’s assault on Zhou is a famous example.

The above points are the changes I have made based on your suggestions. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a fine article. Only another check of the English is advisable. Also check the bibliography: Where is Rosemont and Ames 2016 referred to?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the reminder. I did omit this citation from the article. I have added it in the revised version, which is in the third-last paragraph of page 9. As for the language issue, I also revised it with the help of a native English-speaking colleague, hoping to improve it.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research topic is interesting and important. However, the author should pay attention to several problems:

1. The author stated that scholars have overlooked the concept of “ming”名 in Confucianism, but it should not be denied that previous studies have done several research on Confucian's Rectification of Names, or so-called "zhengming"正名 in Chinese. The author should do a literature review in the "Introduction" section to emphasize how were the discussions of previous studies on this issue? How does the author's work engages with and contributes to current scholarship? Does this issue really not yet gain attention from scholars?

2. The research findings are not clear. Although the author discusses the concept "ming"名 in language, reputation, role, and appropriateness, these 4 aspects, the analysis and opinions are quite brief and general. The author should emphasize what is so new about his/her arguments? How does the analysis of these aspects make the research contributions? The authors should elaborate more.

3. The discussion of empirical findings also needs more attention. It is good that the author uses a lot of evidence from the Confucian classics such as The Analects论语, Mencius 孟子, Zuo Zhuan左传, Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn春秋繁露 in the arguments. But most of the evidence cited from the ancient classics before the Han dynasty, how about the classics which were published in the later dynasty? Would the concept of "ming" 名 in Confucianism remain the same throughout the whole period of ancient China? Does the other Confucianists especially the Zhuxi朱熹 did his different interpretations of the concept "ming"? It could be said that even Dong Zhongshu董仲舒 had his new perspective on the "ming" concept in contrast to Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. How the author should conclude and argue about these different understandings by these Confucianists of the concept and present it precisely in the article?

4. The author should improve his/her language and be concerned with the writing style, citation, and format of the article

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your pertinent advice. For the four points you mentioned for further improvement, I have made the following corresponding revisions:

1. In the first paragraph of section 1, I add a footnote to overview the representative studies on ming or zhengming and explain the relevance to the topic of this paper.
2. In the main part of this article, I focus on how to examine the relationship between the group and the self from the different aspects of ming and use it as a bridge between Confucianism and communitarianism. They ultimately serve the central theme of this paper, that is, ming, as the bond of individual and community, could be an important notion to enrich the discussion of Confucian communitarianism. Thus, in the revised version, I have added some comparisons between the notion of ming and the communitarian view in sections 2, 4, and 5, hoping to make the argument of this paper clearer. Meanwhile, I have expanded and rewritten the conclusion section to further clarify the core argument of this paper to further clarify the main idea and intention of this paper.
3. In the third paragraph of section 1, I added a simple statement on my selection of literature. I agree with your point. Confucius, Xunzi, and Dong Zhongshu do not share a fully consistent view of ming, and even the meaning of the phrase zhengming is different. For Confucius, zhengming is a verb phrase, which means “rectifying names”. For Xunzi, it becomes a noun phrase, which means “the proper/correct names”. Dong quoted several times the expressions of Analects 13.3, however, his views on ming incorporated many other factors, such as Huang-Lao Taoism黃老道家, Gongyang school公羊學, etc. Similarly, the Confucian notion of ming has certainly developed since the former Han dynasty, but it is difficult to be included in the consideration of this paper. For example, Zhuxi朱熹, whom you mentioned, clearly linked zhengming (rectifying names)with zhengzheng (correcting politics), and further clarified the connection between Analects 13.3 and 12.11. Scholars, such as Carine Defoort, Jane Geaney, Cao Feng, etc., have discussed these issues in their studies on zhengming. However, a lengthy discussion of this topic would be a bit far away from the point of this article. The way I've approached this is by giving a brief overview to sketch it out in the third paragraph of section 1, which is about the different backgrounds of Confucius', Xunzi's, and Dong Zhongshu's ideas on ming, and the judgment at the end of the paragraph that “the theoretical development (of ming) was limited”. This is, of course, a crude and proven point. But to avoid straying too far from the topic, it seems to me that the existing treatment is probably the most appropriate.
4. As for the language issue, I also revised it with the help of a native English-speaking colleague, hoping to improve it.

The above points are the changes I have made based on your suggestions. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting paper to review. The main argument is that the notion of ‘ming’ (名, name) in Confucianism could mediate between the individual and the community and function as a possible conceptual link between Confucianism and communitarianism. The paper is knowledgeable and well-written.

However, the author should address the following questions:

a) There is no definition of communitarianism. How does the author understand communitarianism and its main characteristics? This is a crucial step for the construal of the argument. The author states that ‘the constitutive meaning of communities is the real concern of communitarians, because people’s identity and values are shaped by this kind of community, which is perfectly in line with the claim on ming in Confucianism’. However, this definition appears tautological and is certainly not enough. The author needs to address this question and explain their understanding of communitarianism;

b) While the author engages successfully with the secondary literature on the subject, there is a need for more resources on the political philosophy of communitarianism;

c) The analysis tries to respond to the following question: “The question worth asking here is: why does ming as language have such power to affect ethical and political practice, even to influence the stability of the political situation?”. In my view, this is a crucial aspect of the argument, and the author should address this question more carefully in the revised version of the paper. The author should clarify if ‘ming’ is a political concept, a moral concept applying to society as a whole, or both (p. 9);

d) The Conclusion section of the paper should be longer and discuss more thoroughly the main findings and conclusions of the preceding analysis.   

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful advice. For the four points you mentioned for further improvement, I have made the following corresponding revisions:

1. At the beginning of the article, I cited Daniel Bell’s definition of communitarianism. Immediately afterward, I pointed out some common ground between communitarianism and Confucianism, such as the importance of the common good, the rejection of the primacy of individual rights, and the focus on the value of community, etc., which are also seen as the characteristics of communitarianism. In the main part of the article, the discussion of the four aspects of ming also revolves around these characteristics of communitarianism. For example, section 2 deals with the influence of the individual (specifically, the ruler) on the community; section 3 deals with the shaping of values and identity within the community; section 4 explores the influence of "fen" (role), as the equivalent of “membership” in communitarianism, in the cohesion of individuals and communities and the shaping of order. Section 5 introduces the Confucian view on individual rights through the "thick “concept of the subject.
2. In the revised version, I have added some citations to the ideas of communitarians. This is to achieve a fuller comparative study with Confucianism. Here I think I may need to defend myself a little, that is, the object of this paper may not be communitarianism per se, but the Confucian idea of ming. Therefore, in the conclusion, I also reiterate the intention of this paper: “the significance of this work, compared with the enrichment of the discourse on communitarianism, may be more useful for the modern transformation of Confucianism.”
3. I have rewritten this paragraph in the hope of responding to your question. In pre-Qin literature and even in early Confucianism, ming is not only a linguistic and cognitive concept but also an ethical and political concept. The word ming, in terms of both its meaning and its origin, inherently contains the nature of interpersonal interaction.
4. I have rewritten and expanded the conclusion section. The first is to further point out how the four aspects of ming relate to the individual and the group, and how ming plays an important role as a crucial concept of Confucian communitarianism. Second, it is a further emphasis on the main ideas and intentions of the paper.

The above points are the changes I have made based on your suggestions. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I satisfy with the author's amendment and reply