Four Types of Readers: The Chinese Reception of Eric Voegelin

Despite the difficulty in finding proper Chinese words for Voegelin’s terminology, the reception of Voegelin’s works, including translations and research, has rapidly increased in the last two decades. This essay serves as a brief analysis of the reception of Voegelin in the Sinophone world. It will mainly focus on the history, literature, and four representative tendencies of his reception.

The reception of Voegelin between 2009 and 2024 in China is a painstaking and interesting phenomenon for growing Voegelin scholarship. For instance, it is interesting that Chinese academia rarely covers Voegelin’s analysis of China and comparative studies, which should have become a main topic in the Chinese reception of Voegelin. Recently, this neglect has been echoed by the recent publications of several monographs analyzing ancient Chinese order using Voegelin’s paradigm concerning comparative studies on order, which should be regarded as the most theoretically innovative reception in Chinese and also one of the most noteworthy trends in the Voegelin studies.^[1] Instead, Voegelin’s controversial thesis, “Gnosticism—The Nature of Modernity,” receives considerable attention as his analysis on Classics and Christianity alike.^[2]

The reception of Voegelin at the turn of the century was summarized by Qiang Li in “Eric Voegelin’s Reception in China.”^[3] Since then, it has become more active and diverse. Considering that this essay came out probably in 2008,^[4] the following analysis will employ it as the time spot to analyze the changes in the reception from 2009 to 2024. On the one hand, translations of Voegelin up until 2008 were slow to come out. The first consultable Chinese translation of Voegelin was his analysis of Nietzsche and Pascal, which appears in a volume of essays in Nietzsche and Christian.^[5] Afterward, translations of and about Voegelin slowly appeared, including two secondary literature pieces by Eugune Webb and Gerhart Niemeyer in 1983 and 1985, respectively. On the other hand, as for the research up until 2008, only five academic papers on the subject of Voegelin were published, including one doctoral dissertation. Until 2009, Voegelin was not a significant concern in Chinese scholarship.

From 2009 to 2024, there has been considerable growth concerning the reception of Voegelin. In respect to translations, more than thirty Voegelin-related books have been published, which cover Voegelin’s magnum opus, including the series of Order and History (two editions), The New Science of Politics (two editions), History of Political Ideas (two editions) and Anamnesis. As for research, more than fifty papers on the subject of Voegelin have been published, including seven master’s theses and two doctoral dissertation.^[6] From 2019 to January 2024, the research on Voegelin has become increasingly popular; many topical journal articles, lectures, and conferences have emerged.[7] Additionally, there are lectures and speeches given by Voegelin experts such as Jürgen Gebhardt, Thomas Heilke, Tilo Schabert, and James Rhodes in different Chinese universities. In short, the popularity of Voegelin has been prominent in the last few years, which can be detected from the publications (translations, papers, and theses). Besides the sporadic references and brief introduction, the critical reception of Voegelin in mainland Chinese academia occurred in the twenty-first century. Scholars and readers in mainland China can be divided into four types according to their topics and socio-political concerns.

The first type of reader, represented by Xiaofeng Liu,^[8] treats Voegelin as a philosopher against the disorder of the times, and as a slightly inferior companion of Leo Strauss. They mainly refer to Voegelin’s criticism of Western liberal creeds, such as his controversial argument that “the nature of modernity is Gnosticism,” his study on Greek philosophy, or his debate with Strauss concerning the legacies of Jerusalem or Athens to political philosophy. Briefly, it is arguable that these readers are inclined to employ Voegelin as a resource concerning the reflection of modernity, more specifically, the reflection of Western modernity and explore an alternative understanding of modernity.

The second type of reader, represented by Qiang Li,^[9] regards Voegelin as a political theorist in the Weberian sense. They mainly focus on Voegelin’s political theory, history of political ideas, theory of order, and ideological movement in that they intend to understand the political issues in China with the help of Voegelin in the conservative sense, such as how to theorize socio-political order and rethink and accept Chinese tradition. These readers may find out later that Voegelin does not discuss political issues like other typical political theorists do, hence it is not easy to analyze theoretical issues in Chinese politics with Voegelin’s eye. Voegelin’s emphasis on the transcendence of human existence is also a theme that political theorists, including the Chinese, find hard to agree with but remains a worthwhile subject of study.

The third type of reader, represented by Zhiyue Xu (Daniel Hsu) and Hong Xu (Promise Hsu),^[10] interprets Voegelin as a Christian scholar because of his endless search for the source of order as a Christian search for faith and his various ruminations about Christianity.^[11] They are concerned with Voegelin’s discussion on soul, spirit, Israel, religion, Christianity, theology, consciousness, and experience.^[12] Some of these readers may also have a background in Christianity and share Voegelin’s transcendental view of human existence. Interpreting Voegelin as a representative of the reviving of Christianity to overcome the contemporary socio-political disorder is common in the American reception of Voegelin, for instance, in the works of Paul Caringella.^[13] Nevertheless, it is problematic to refer to Voegelin as a typical Christian or a Catholic, which has been comprehensively analyzed by Gebhardt. Moreover, Voegelin’s critical analysis of German Protestants and Catholic priests in his lectures on Hitler and the Germans can be seen as evidence for Voegelin’s lukewarm and unorthodox view of Christianity.^[14] Some may argue that Voegelin’s criticism of the German Christian does not reflect his opposition of Christianity but the deformation of Christianity by German churches and their clergy. One interesting fact is that Voegelin’s identity is Protestant and he identified as a Protestant when he tried to find a university position in his early years;^[15] Voegelin’s relationship to Protestantism (Lutheranism) is also due to his father’s faith.^[16] Nevertheless, Voegelin was baptized and buried as a Christian.^[17] Although Voegelin took Christianity as one crucial subject of his research, he rarely took it as a confession of faith, and neither did he talk about his personal belief in his works. He asserts that his analysis disorder and the search for order are not related to personal belief. The relationship between Voegelin and Christianity, his attitude to Christianity, or any other forms of religion—be it agnostic or religious—was once clearly stated by Voegelin in his letter to Thomas Cook and analyzed by Gebhardt in “The Vocation of the Scholar”^[18] and Sandoz in Chapter 5 of Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America.

Recently, Chinese scholars started re-emphasizing Voegelin’s works, including revising and republishing existing Chinese versions and new works in Chinese. The most notable academic activities are the new trends revealed by the latest research papers referring to Voegelin. They are not only introducing and interpreting Voegelin but also trying to borrow Voegelin’s arguments to analyze the existing Western framework and establish a new self-understanding concerning global politics and the role of China. For instance, when Liu demonstrates the argument relating to “What is the Chinese moment of world history,” he refers to Voegelin’s criticism of Western thought and discourse on the ecumenic age.^[19]

As mentioned in the beginning, in the past few years, with the development of comparative civilization studies, Western philosophy in China, and the awakening of self-identity of individuals and civilization, several experts in Chinese philosophy have begun to employ Voegelin’s paradigm to analyze the Chinese order in a broad sense, who represented the fourth type of reader.[20]

The first noteworthy work of this new and emerging reader of Voegelin is Wenming Tang’s Leap in Being and Art of Balance: Supplement and Revisal of Eric Voegelin’s Analyses of Chinese Civilization in the Light of Philosophy of Order (2023). This book focuses on Voegelin’s Order and History, especially The Ecumenic Age, and attempts to answer two key questions: “How did Voegelin view Chinese civilization at different periods?” and “How should we evaluate Voegelin’s research on Chinese civilization.” Based on a comprehensive review and highly identified with Voegelin’s philosophy of order, this book supplements the inadequacies in Voegelin’s original analysis and corrects earlier inaccuracies. Furthermore, it addresses the broader historical question of how Chinese civilization can achieve its renewal through continuous and in-depth learning from Western civilization.[21]

A second book is Yun Chen’s The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach (2023). This book starts with a reflection on Western modern philosophy of history, which states that the philosophy of history in the West since modern times has developed various forms, such as “speculative philosophy of history” addressing historical existence, “critical/analytical philosophy of history” and “narrative philosophy of history” focusing on historical understanding. These different forms of philosophy of history can be attributed to the narrative of universal history. This book, from the perspective of the ancient-modern and East-West debate, articulates the philosophy of history with the civilizational approach in response to the great unprecedented changes of the past century. It views human history from the perspective of multiple civilizations, which is divided into three dimensions: part one covers the reconstruction of historical Universality; part two covers the theory of world-historical process; part three covers world order, the symbiosis of multiple civilizations and the meaning in history.[22]

A third book is Zhizhe Cai’s The Chinese and Korean Confucian Search for Order: A Study focusing on Zhu Xi’s Thought in Choson Korea (2022). This book, focusing on East Asian Confucianism and referencing Voegelin, reflects the contribution and limitations of the Chinese order articulated by Zhu Xi’s(朱熹) Neo-Confucianism. Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism critically examines the traditional Han-Tang Chinese order, which can also be seen as a Voegelinian “leap in being” in the Chinese order. During the transformations and crises of disarray from the mid-Ming to the Ming-Qing transition, Korean Confucians hoped to inherit the Neo-Confucian tradition after Zhu Xi and reshape the Chinese order, which can again be regarded as a “leap in being” within the ancient Chinese order. This examination is valuable for our contemporary reflection on what constitutes the “Chinese order.”[23]

As shown above, these receptions address Voegelin’s philosophy of history, comparative order analysis in The Ecumenic Age, and his corresponding argument on Chinese order as an “incomplete breakthrough” to articulate a new understanding of Chinese order with modern orientation.

Voegelin’s argument concerning the “incomplete breakthrough” was made in the late 1950s to early 1960s, likely 1959–1960. In later discussions on China, Voegelin no longer focused on the expression of the “incomplete breakthrough” but moved towards analyzing the historical structure of the The Ecumenic Age/Tianxia Age. With this new framework, Voegelin finally broke free from Karl Jaspers’ axial age and Weber’s rationalization. However, his understanding of the Chinese order is still an unfinished task, and Opitz regards it as an episode.[24]

In summary, the reception of Voegelin in Chinese can be divided into four categories, each with its characteristics and main concerns. Overall, it is increasingly enriched, leading to deeper critical research. Notably, the reception by Chinese philosophers represents the latest and most theoretically novel development. On the one hand, Voegelin’s theory is critically analyzed by Chinese philosophers and supplemented by Chinese order symbols and experience, which is Voegelin’s unfinished work. On the other hand, Chinese philosophers gain a unique standpoint from Voegelin to examine the Western order, gaining more theoretical resource in addressing universal humanity. The fact that Voegelin’s reception in China is growing should also be a cause of interest to western scholars.

NOTES:

^[1] I plan to analyze this newest update at the 40th International Meeting of The Eric Voegelin Society in 2024.

^[2] It would be interesting to critically compare the popularity of Voegelin, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, and Carl Schmitt as intellectual and political phenomena in the Chinese world. Some scholars have done part of the works. Kai Marchal, and Carl KY Shaw, ed., Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-Speaking World: Reorienting the Political (Lanham, Boulder, New Yorker, and London: Lexington Books, 2017). Ryan Martinez Mitchell, “Chinese Receptions of Carl Schmitt Since 1929,” Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs 8, no. 1 (2020): 181-263.

^[3] Qiang Li , “Eric Voegelin’s Reception in China,” VoegelinView, accessed November 17, 2020, https://voegelinview.com/eric-voegelins-reception-in-china/.

^[4] The dating of the article is according to the information (the date of the copyright, the date of the notes and the date of one mentioned report with the description of lately in the 17^th notes, the information of the report: Evan Osnos, “Angry Youth: The New Generation’s Neocon Nationalists,” The New Yorker, July 21, 2008.

^[5] The original version of Voegelin’s work can be seen from The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, vol.25, p.251–303. (It is abbreviated hereafter as: CW, 25:251–303.)  (“Part Eight. Last Orientation: 4. Nietzsche and Pascal”). The Chinese Version has multiple reprints from 2001 to 2014. The Latest version can be seen from the following Chinese website: http://www.hxph.com.cn/xfcttj/4341.jhtml

^[6] The above statistics are from www.cnki.net.

[7] For more, see <here>.

^[8] Liu Xiaofeng刘小枫edited several Voegelin’s works including the series of History of Political Ideas, Modernity without Restraint; Anamnesis, Autobiographical Reflections, Three interpretations of Plato’s Politeia, and so on. His discussion on Voegelin: http://www.aisixiang.com/data/112926.html.

^[9] Li Qiang 李强invited several Voegelin experts to the Peking University, such as Jürgen Gebhardt and Tilo Scharbert and James Rhodes to give lectures and speeches including Voegelin’s political philosophy, moreover, one of his doctoral students write a doctoral dissertation on Voegelin; some of the Chinese translators was his doctoral student.  

^[10] Xu Zhiyue 徐志跃builds a personal relationship with Ellis Sandoz, Thomas Heilke (Canadian) and some other Voegelin experts in America, as a Christian his interests more focus on Voegelin’s discussion on religious, theology, consciousness, experience and soul, he translated The Voegelinian Revolution, Autobiographical Reflections, and In search of Order into Chinese. Promise Hsu, China’s Quest for Liberty: A Personal History of Freedom (South Bend, IN: St. Augustines Press, 2019). Promise Hsu, “The Reality of Politics and the Relevance of Voegelin,” VoegelinView. Xu Yingxu 许应许, “Zhengzhi zhenxiang: chudu Wogelin he Sang Duozi” 许应许：政治真相：初读沃格林和桑多兹 [Political truth: early reading on Voegelin and Sandoz], Gongfa pinlun 公法评论, Xu Yingxu 许应许, “Zhengzhi zhenxiang” 政治真相 [Political truth].

^[11] I wish to thank Mr. Xu Hong (Promise Hsu) for his valuable remarks and suggestions on this theme, Xu Hong, email message to Muen Liu, January 28, 2021.

^[12] Mary Li Ma, “Varieties of Chinese Nationalisms and Their Implications on Religions,” VoegelinView.

^[13] Ellis Sandoz, Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America (Columbia and London: University of Missouri, 2006), 116–117.

^[14] The lectures, which were given in the summer semester of 1964 in the Munich University, was published and collected as CW, 31. Hitler and the Germans.

^[15] CW, 29:156. In a letter to Gottfried Von Haberler, an Austrian-American economist and a Professor of the economics department at Harvard University, Voegelin attached his Curriculum Vitae, which shows that Voegelin was a protestant at that moment. This letter was written in Vienna on May 10, 1938, to get out of Austria and apply for a position in America.

^[16] In one of our conversations, Prof. Gebhardt told me that Voegelin had always been a protestant. He could give up his belief or convert to others, but he did not. From this information, we only know Voegelin held a belief as a normal person at that time instead of concluding that Voegelin’s belief greatly influenced his thought.

^[17] Ellis Sandoz, Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America (Columbia and London: University of Missouri, 2006), 116–117.

^[18] CW, 30:187–188. (Letter to Thomas Cook, 1953). Jürgen Gebhardt, “The Vocation of the Scholar,” in International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Eric Voegelin, ed. Stephen A. Mcknight and Geoffrey L. Price (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 1997), 27. Eric Voegelin, “Recovering Reality: An Interview with Eric Voegelin,” interviewed by Peter Cangelosi and John William Corrington, 1973, Transcript, VoegelinView. Ellis Sandoz, Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America (Columbia and London: University of Missouri, 2006), 114–120.

^[19] Xiaofeng Liu 刘小枫, “Hewei Shijie Lishi de Zhongguo Shike” 何谓世界历史的中国时刻 [What is the Chinese moment in world history], Zhengzhisixiangshi 政治思想史 1 (2019): 144–197.

[20] Wenming Tang唐文明, Jigaoming yu Daozhongyong: Buzheng Wogelin dui Zhongguo Wenming de zhixuzhexuefenxi 极高明与道中庸：补正沃格林对中国文明的秩序哲学分析 [Leap in Being and Art of Balance: Supplement and Revisal of Eric Voegelin’s Analyses of Chinese Civilization in the Light of Philosophy of Order](Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2023), 1-434. Yun Chen陈赟, Wenminglun de Lishizhexue文明论的历史哲学[The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach] (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2023). 1–1072. Zhizhe Cai,蔡至哲Zhonghan ruzhe de zhixu zhuiqiu: Yi chaoxian zhu zi xue ruzhe wei zhongxin de guancha中、韓儒者的秩序追求：以朝鮮朱子學儒者為中心的觀察[The Chinese and Korean Confucian Search for Order: A Study focusing on Zhu Xi’s Thought in Choson Korea] (Taipei City: Shin Wen Feng Print Co., 2022), 1–366.

[21] Wenming Tang, Leap in Being and Art of Balance, 12–13.

[22] Yun Chen, The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach, 5–7.

[23] Zhizhe Cai,The Chinese and Korean Confucian Search for Order, 1.

[24] Peter J. Opitz, Die chinesische Episode: Anmerkungen zum werksgeschichtlichen Hintergrund des China-Kapitels in Eric Voegelins The Ecumenic Age, Voegeliniana-Occasional Papers, No. 99, Oktober 2015, p.15. (Anlage 1. p. 57.). Muen Liu, Eric Voegelin on China and Universal Humanity: A Study of Voegelin’s Hermeneutic Empirical Paradigm. Political Theory for Today series. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2023, p.86–94.

Print