Wonderful—let’s apply genealogical methodology to the Confucian dispositif. That is: we will treat Confucianism not as a timeless essence or unified doctrine, but as a historically contingent, power-saturated configuration of discourses, practices, institutions, subjectivities, and strategic responses to historical problems.
We will explore how “Confucianism” functions as a dispositif: a strategic formation that governs how subjects are shaped, how order is maintained, and how power circulates.
I. Genealogical Question
Not: What is Confucianism?
But:
How did “Confucianism” emerge, mutate, and survive as a dispositif for regulating thought, behavior, and power across dynasties and regimes?
II. Step-by-Step Genealogical Analysis
1. De-naturalization: Confucianism is not timeless
Though often presented as China’s perennial “orthodox” tradition, Confucianism is a constructed continuity, shaped by:
• Dynastic power struggles
• Institutional needs
• Responses to social unrest and foreign influence
• Textual canonization, exclusion, and reinvention
Key genealogical insight:
The Confucian dispositif was always reinvented in relation to problems of governance, order, moral crisis, and cultural legitimacy.
2. Historical Problematizations and Strategic Formations
Let’s look at how Confucianism as a dispositif was strategically deployed across time:
A. Han Dynasty (2nd c. BCE) – The Imperial Deployment
Historical problem: How to legitimize centralized imperial rule after the collapse of the Qin and feudal warfare?
Strategic solution:
• Confucian classics selected, standardized (via Dong Zhongshu)
• Ru scholars incorporated into bureaucracy
• Emphasis on ritual (禮), filial piety (孝), loyalty (忠)
Dispositif:
• Discourse: Classical learning, heavenly mandate, hierarchy
• Institution: Imperial examination system, state ritual, ancestral temples
• Subjectivity: The obedient son, loyal official, cultivated gentleman (junzi)
B. Song Dynasty (10–13th c.) – Neo-Confucian Reconfiguration
Historical problem: How to respond to the metaphysical pull of Buddhism and Daoism, and redefine moral order amid bureaucratic expansion?
Strategic solution:
• Neo-Confucian synthesis (e.g., Zhu Xi)
• Reassertion of li (principle) and xin (mind/heart)
• Promotion of self-cultivation as governance
Dispositif:
• Discourse: Human nature as inherently good; moral principle in all things
• Institution: Revival of Confucian academies (書院), civil exams centered on the Four Books
• Subjectivity: The self-monitoring, morally reflexive scholar-official
C. Late Imperial / Ming-Qing Era – Ritualization and Crisis
Historical problem: How to reimpose order in a fragmented or corrupt social field?
Strategic solution:
• Hyper-ritualization of family order
• Use of lineage structures to control rural populations
• Confucian moralism as a form of social policing
Dispositif:
• Discourse: Moral decay = political collapse
• Institution: Clan genealogies, village schools, moral lectures
• Subjectivity: The self-surveilling patriarch; the anxious woman confined to chastity and domesticity
D. 20th–21st Century – Fragmentation, Revivals, Reappropriations
Historical problem: Confucianism as feudal relic? Or national resource?
Strategic bifurcation:
• Modernist/Revolutionary critique: Confucianism as enemy (May Fourth, Maoist critique)
• State Confucianism 2.0 (since 1990s): Re-appropriation for national unity, social harmony, cultural legitimacy
Dispositif (today):
• Discourse: “Harmony,” “Chinese values,” “Confucian revival”
• Institution: Confucius Institutes, Xi Jinping’s speeches, state rituals
• Subjectivity: The patriotic, disciplined, morally cultivated citizen-subject under Party guidance
III. Subjectivation and Power: What Kind of Subject Does It Produce?
Across time, the Confucian dispositif produced:
• A docile but morally aspirational subject
• A subject whose interiority is governed through ritual and reflection
• A subject who internalizes hierarchy as natural
• A subject who feels responsible for the moral order of the world
Power is exercised not by force, but by moralization and interior discipline.
IV. Genealogical Insight:
The “Confucian tradition” is not a continuous essence, but a shifting dispositif that has been strategically reassembled in different historical moments to solve particular political and ethical crises.
And thus:
The persistence of Confucianism is not proof of its truth, but of its strategic adaptability within regimes of power/knowledge.
V. Why This Matters Today
• When Confucianism is revived today as “cultural heritage” or “soft power,” it is not returning to its roots—it is being re-deployed as a governing dispositif.
• Its moral authority is used to discipline individual behavior, justify centralized authority, and neutralize dissent in the name of “harmony.”
• Genealogical critique makes visible the invisible power behind these cultural invocations.
Would you like me to help turn this into a lecture, article, or structured visual diagram? Or perhaps apply this to Taiwan’s post-Confucian discourse, or New Confucianism’s ethical claims?
