Voegelin’s Influence on Contemporary Confucians’ Understanding of Chinese Order: A Sketch of Wenming Tang and Yun Chen’s Latest Books

One question that has long intrigued Voegelin scholars is why, despite Voegelin having been introduced to China for decades, his research on China has yet to gain much attention among Chinese scholars. This absence is countered by the publication of several books analyzing the Chinese civilization based on Voegelin’s philosophy of history. As one of the most theoretically innovative and noteworthy trends in the study of Voegelin and contemporary Chinese intellectuals, Contemporary Confucian Scholars’ employment of Voegelin deserves particular attention. In this essay, I will provide a brief introduction to Wenming Tang’s Leap in Being and Art of Balance: Supplementing and Correcting Eric Voegelin’s Analysis of Chinese Civilization in the Light of Philosophy of Order (2023) and Yun Chen’s The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach (2023), two representative studies of Confucian’s reception of Voegelin for the English-speaking academia, offering a foundation for readers interested in further exploration.

Tang’s Leap in Being and Art of Balance is arguably the first book on Voegelin in Chinese academia. Tang argues that his book’s starting point and focus are centered on Voegelin’s order-philosophical analysis of Chinese civilization, which naturally extends to a comprehensive examination of Voegelin’s philosophy of order. In Order and History (I–III), Voegelin generally classifies the Chinese order as a type of cosmological empire akin to the ancient Near Eastern empires. However, when analyzing the Chinese order in The Ecumenic Age, Voegelin asserts that the Chinese order underwent an “incomplete breakthrough” and a “subdued, muted mode of differentiation that causes the difficulties of analysis”(The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, 17: 356). A detailed examination of Voegelin’s theorization in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly reflected in CW 12, can help one realize that the apparent continuity of the above theses obscures his further clarification concerning the “Ecumenic Age” and universal humanity, including his updated understanding of Chinese order. Tang is aware of the change in nature and intends to clarify the difference. Thus, he argues that his book addresses two pivotal questions: “How did Voegelin view Chinese civilization at different periods?” and “How should we evaluate Voegelin’s research on Chinese civilization?” (Tang 2023, 5–6). The following paragraphs will briefly introduce the theme and the main content of each chapter of Tang’s book for readers’ reference.

Tang explains that “supplementing and correcting” in the subtitle adequately captures this book’s fundamental orientation and primary intent. While it strongly aligns with Voegelin’s philosophy of order, the book aims to provide necessary supplements and significant corrections to Voegelin’s analysis of Chinese civilization based on a comprehensive overview of his philosophy of order. Besides, it further derives a series of viewpoints on Chinese civilization. “supplementing” addresses the insufficiencies in Voegelin’s analysis, such as the lack of clarity regarding the order of the Sandai (Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasties are the first dynasties in traditional Chinese historiography from c. 2070 BC–221 BC, 三代) in the Chinese Tianxia. The “correction” targets the inaccuracies, such as Voegelin’s assertion that the spiritual breakthrough in China was incomplete and insufficient. Guided by the above problems, Tang’s book can be divided into two parts. The first half analyzes Voegelin’s philosophy of order, and the second half demonstrates the breakthrough and exemplary importance of the Chinese order, compared with the Hellenic and Israelite orders based on Voegelin’s philosophy of order. The above discussion is divided into ten chapters.

Chapter one analyzes how Voegelin, using classical philosophy exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, introduces his philosophy of order and applies this concept to analyze different civilizations. By introducing the symbol of the “primordial community of being,” Voegelin identifies four fundamental realities that constitute human order: God, man, world, and society, which manifest in a structured manner in human experience. Voegelin summarizes the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and others, including metaphysics and political philosophy, as the philosophy of order. Tang contends that Voegelin, later in his career, distinguishes between the philosophy of order as the philosophy of consciousness and the philosophy of history. Briefly, the philosophy of consciousness is the core of the philosophy of order, while philosophy of history constitutes its main framework. In the philosophy of history, Voegelin uses God as the foundation of existence, ordering the cosmos, emphasizing human participation in the divine ground. Based on this participatory experience, he developed a unique realism, “experiential-realism,” which lays the theoretical foundation for the philosophy of history.

Chapter two examines Voegelin’s philosophy of history and analyzes Augustine’s influence on Voegelin. Voegelin distinguishes between two types of social order experiences in history. The first is the cosmological order, characterized by the experience of god as immanent within the cosmos, serving as the foundation of existence. The second involves a breakthrough beyond the cosmological order, characterized by the experience of the god as transcendence. For Voegelin, history primarily refers to human society’s progression from the former order to the latter. Tang argues that Voegelin did not provide a specific term to encapsulate the latter order, and he conceptualizes it as “a psychologiae order” (心性论秩序; the term, “a psychologiae order” with a Latin expression is used by Tang to refer to the Voegelian existential order after the event of “leap in being,” Tang 2023, 52, 377) as this order is established through the consciousness, which serves as the transcendent sensory center. The main argument of this chapter is that while the philosophy of consciousness, which lies at the core of the philosophy of order, primarily derives from Voegelin’s interpretation of the classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, the philosophy of history, as the backbone of the philosophy of order, is almost entirely shaped by Augustine’s profound influence on Voegelin. Voegelin summarizes Augustine’s philosophy of history as a “dual ecumenicism,” his work in Order and History can largely be seen as an effort to reconstruct the Augustinian philosophy of history in a new context. However, Tang claims that Voegelin does not affirm Augustine from the standpoint of a Christian theologian; rather, his interpretation is grounded in his philosophy of order.

Chapter three investigates Voegelin’s views on Chinese civilization as presented in Order and History (I–III). On the one hand, Voegelin acknowledges that a spiritual breakthrough occurred in China, yet on the other hand, he judges the order of Chinese civilization as a cosmological one. This inconsistency is described by Tang as “the problem of Chinese civilization in Order and History (I–III).” By analyzing the details related to Chinese civilization in these volumes, Tang provides a “diagram of the sequence of civilizational development” at the end of this chapter, allowing readers to see how Voegelin perceives the order of Chinese civilization. Specifically, China is regarded as a form of civilization situated between ancient Greek and Israel that requires further analysis. In this way, Tang argues that he offers a reasonable response to “the problem” mentioned above.

Chapter four explores the second breakthrough in Voegelin’s intellectual development. Tang analyzes this breakthrough from two aspects: first, the discovery of the theory of historiogenesis, which led Voegelin to a more thorough critique of the linear view of history; second, the introduction of the theory of equivalences of experience and symbolization in history, which is closely related to the discovery of historiogenesis and represents a major theoretical breakthrough. This breakthrough prompted Voegelin to recognize the need for significant revisions to his original philosophy of history.

Chapter five investigates Voegelin’s theory of Tianxia and explores his deconstruction of Jaspers’ Axial Age. Voegelin contends that Jaspers’ Axial Age is still a modern construction and has not yet gotten rid of the view of unilinear history. Based on the deconstruction of the Axial Age, Voegelin proposed the theory of Tianxia. Voegelin expounded the significance of spiritual outburst, imperial construction, and historiography in the process of human existence and thus regarded the triadic structure as “a pattern that could be understood as meaningful emerges in the field of history”(CW, 17: 51?) the so-called “configuration of history.” Related to the phenomenon of empire construction, Voegelin distinguished the dual ecumenism of Church and empire and pointed out the complex relationship between spiritual outburst and empire construction. In response to the phenomenon of historiography, Voegelin depicted how historical consciousness became a spiritual force that constructed and maintained an evocative order with society. As for the theoretical destination of the Ecumenic Age, it is the Augustinian dual ecumenism that has been uniquely interpreted by Voegelin. It is worth mentioning that the most important connotation of the Ecumenic Age is the defense of universal humanity as the subject of history and the related highlighting of the transcendent love that constitutes universal humanity.

Chapter six revisits Voegelin’s concern with the problem of Gnosticism in light of the “Ecumenic Age.” Tang asserts that “transcendence” and “beginning” are analytical concepts later developed by Voegelin for Gnosticism, where the balance between the consciousness of transcendence and the consciousness of beginning becomes an inherent requirement for an evocative order toward transcendence. Gnosticism is thus characterized as an imbalance between these two forms of consciousness. Voegelin contends that the criterion of balance in Western civilization was established by Plato, whereas the Christian canon is also deeply influenced by Gnosticism. Voegelin succinctly analyzes Gnostic elements in the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John, directly echoing his assertion in The New Science of Politics that modernity is “the growth of Gnosticism.” In this chapter, through a comprehensive analysis of Voegelin’s discussions on Gnosticism in different periods, Tang highlights that Voegelin’s identification of Gnosticism in the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John corresponds significantly with his classification of modern Gnostic trends into progressivism and utopianism—along with activist mysticism as a combination of the two. Consequently, we gain a clarified understanding of the significance of the Gnosticism issue within the “Ecumenic Age.”

After a concise analysis of Voegelin’s philosophy of history in the first six chapters, chapters seven to ten present Tang’s unique analysis of the experiences and symbols of Chinese order based on Voegelin’s philosophy of history. Thus, these four chapters constitute the most original contributions to Voegelin’s studies and Chinese studies.

Chapter seven examines Voegelin’s analysis of the Tianxia (Chinese Ecumene) in The Ecumenic Age. Voegelin keenly extracts a view from the book of Baihu Tong regarding the distinction between “emperor” and “king,” positing that the order before the Sandai (“Three Dynasties”) was a cosmological order, while the order after the Sandai (“Three Dynasties”) was an existential order (“a psychologiae order,” Tang 2023, 52, 377). Voegelin also summarizes the different principles between Tianxia and Guo (State) based on Mencius’s distinction between “king” and “ba” (hegemony): Tianxia is governed by the principle of the Wang-dao (Way of King, 王道) emphasizing Wen (civility or culture, 文) and De (virtue, 德), while Guo is governed by the principle of the “Ba-dao” (Way of Hegemony, 霸道) emphasizing Wu (warfare武) and Li (force/strength, 力). Additionally, Voegelin notes that the cyclical history in Confucian classics is fundamentally similar to Vico’s cyclical history. Tang argues that, given his high regard for Vico’s philosophy of history, this comparison implies a high evaluation of the Confucian philosophy of history. In this chapter, Tang particularly emphasizes that Confucius’s construction of the Sandai (“Three Dynasties” 三代) cycle is key to understanding the uniqueness of Confucian religious civilization. Tang’s most significant supplementary work is the reinterpretation of Confucius’s construction of the Sandai cycle, especially the reorganization of the relationship between Zhi (nature, physis, 质) and Wen (civility or culture, nomos, 文) of the Sandai cycle and the reinterpretation of the discourse on the Sanwang zhi dao (way of three kings in the three dynasties, 三王之道) in Confucian classics. As for Voegelin’s critical understanding of the relation between politics and religion in the Qin-Han empire based on Augustine’s dual ecumenism, while acknowledging its profound insights, Tang also points out another possible interpretation.

Chapter eight analyzes the issues caused by the multiple ecumenes. Voegelin’s conclusion regarding his philosophy of history can be summarized as follows: the origin of history lies in human experience in consciousness, the structure of history is eschatological, and the subject of history is the an universal humankind. In the chapter “Universal Humanity” in The Ecumenic Age, Voegelin first summarizes various insights into human history derived from the Western Ecumenic Age, then examines the issues brought about by the existence of multiple ecumenes, particularly questions concerning the “absolute epoch” of human history and the mystery of history. Humans in different civilizations have different experiences of human history, leading to differing experiences of the “absolute epoch” of human history. The need to defend universal human history while also confronting the diverse human experience gives rise to seemingly irresolvable disputes over the question of the “absolute epoch” in human history. However, with the theory of equivalences of experience and symbolization, such disputes can be resolved. Shortly, since the different experiences of human history all point toward universal humankind, these different experiences and their corresponding understandings of the “absolute epoch” of human history are equivalent at the level of truth regarding reality. In other words, since different experiences of the “absolute epoch” of human history all point toward universal humankind, these experiences are equally valid for everyone. Voegelin addresses this issue effortlessly in the chapter on “Universal Humanity.” Tang summarizes Voegelin’s Ecumenic Age as “pluralistic universalism.” The existence of the multiple ecumenes also inevitably raises the question about the mystery of history—the question related to the divine foundation of existence, which Voegelin characterizes as singular, capitalized the Question. Voegelin contends that “The questions are not meant to be answered; on the contrary, they symbolize the mystery in the structure of history by their unanswerability. Hence, the Question as a symbolism sui generis becomes the problem to be clarified”(The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, 17: 389). In his specific analysis, Voegelin provides examples from Babylonian, Indian, and Jewish traditions within his framework, without including China. Tang attempts to introduce Qu Yuan’s (c. 340 BC – 278 BC,) long poem Tianwen (Questions to Heaven, 天问) as an example from Chinese civilization that reflects questioning the mystery of history. The poem is analyzed from a Voegelinian philosophy of order. Additionally, regarding the opposite of maintaining the Question—namely, the prohibition of questioning—as it appears in the modern Gnostic movements, Voegelin had already addressed this theme before writing The Ecumenic Age. In this chapter, Tang provides a detailed comparative analysis of this critical theme to highlight the importance of the Question.

Chapter nine delves into three significant unresolved issues in Voegelin’s analysis of Chinese civilization. Voegelin’s examination of Chinese civilization is a crucial component of his theory of the “Ecumenic Age,” yet at least three fundamental problems remain: First, Voegelin characterizes Chinese civilization as an anthropological order that has not entirely break with its cosmological order, a point that requires further investigation. Second, Voegelin’s “Ecumenic Age” interprets the transition from cosmological to ecumenic existential order (“a psychologiae order,” Tang 2023, 52, 377) in human societies as a progress in history. However, from the perspective of participants within Chinese civilization, the historical process of early China can be divided into four ages represented by the figures of “Sovereigns (Huang, 皇)-Emperor (Di, 帝)-King (Wang, 王)-Hegemon (Ba, 霸),” which might instead be portrayed as a retrogressive process in history. This apparent contradiction severely challenges Voegelin’s analysis of Chinese civilization and his core insights. Lastly, while Voegelin acknowledges the strong historical consciousness within Chinese civilization, he does not thoroughly explore its origins. Tang’s responses to these three issues focus on the persistent cosmological concerns within Chinese civilization. Specifically, Tang defines the Chinese civilization is “a psychologiae order articulated in a cosmological style” (Tang 2023, 377). By analyzing the philosophy of history embodied by the “Sovereigns (Huang)-Emperor (Di)-King (Wang)-Hegemon (Ba),” Tang identifies a notion of historical progress in the Voegelinian sense, locating the transcendental breakthrough in Chinese history in the time of the Sovereigns (Huang). Ultimately, Tang characterizes the spiritual core of Chinese civilization as a “metaphysics of returning” (回返的形而上学) in contrast to a “metaphysics of escaping (Exodus)” in Judeo-Christian civilization and a “metaphysics of perfecting” in Greek civilization (Tang 2023, 376). In terms of theophanic symbols, Tang contrasts the pneumatic hierophany/theophany in Israelite civilization and the noetic hierophany/theophany in Hellenic civilization with a more concretized, aesthetic theophany or cosmological hierophany (Tang 2023, 377) (感性, sensory or feel; a related term is Ganying 感应, a term to describe interactions between heaven and humankind, for more information see Ganying and Dong Zhongshu (董仲舒, 179–104 BC)’s theory of Tianren Ganying, 天人感应) in Chinese civilization. Tang argues that these three types of hierophanies correspond precisely to the first three elements of the fourfold structure in Voegelin’s primordial community of being: when God, man, and cosmos (Tang replaces world with cosmos) each become distinct domains for expressing the truth of order, three types of hierophanies emerge. Tang also concludes with a “Typology of Historical Civilizations” table and proposes a conclusion: in its original form, Chinese civilization represents the paradigm of an aesthetic civilization (艺术性文明), as opposed to Israel as the paradigm of a religious civilization (宗教性文明) and Greek civilization as the paradigm of a philosophical civilization (哲学性文明). Thus, Liyue (Li-yue [礼乐] are two arts belong to Liuyi [六艺the Six Arts]; the later equivalent to the Hellenic techne, including ancient Chinese Rites, Music, Archery, Chariotry, Calligraphy, and Mathematics), revelation, and philosophy emerge as three exemplary forms of civilization in human history (Tang 2023, 391–393).

Chapter ten briefly explores the “art of balance” within Chinese civilization through the analysis of the “sancai zhi dao” (三才之道, the way of heaven-earth-man three talents), a symbol of order within Chinese civilization. Given the close connection between the issue of balance and the experience of the cosmos, examining the “art of balance” in Chinese civilization also implies a deeper explanation of the persistent cosmological concerns in Chinese civilization. Tang first expands Voegelin’s concept of “balance of consciousness” into “balance of Jiaohua” (教化, Confucian cultivation/Confucian edification, Confucian Paideia) and then expounds a passage from the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong,中庸) that praises the way of the sage. The conclusion drawn is that the “art of balance” in Chinese civilization is all-encompassing, and it is precisely this comprehensive pursuit of balance that defines the cosmological style of Chinese civilization, which is reflected in the experience and symbolizations with a cosmological style and the Jiaohua mode with a cosmological style. The most concise expression of the “art of balance,” Jigaoming er Daozhongyong (极高明而道中庸) appears in this passage. Tang uses a similar expression, “Jigaoming yu Daozhongyong,” entitles this book; he argues that Jigaoming corresponds to Voegelin’s “leap in being,” while Daozhongyong at least partially corresponds to what Voegelin refers to as “the postulate of balance.” The word yu is meant to express that, in the great civilizations where a leap in being has occurred, the paths and mechanisms of gaining balance are as diverse and complex as the ways of the leap. In the end, how Chinese civilization can continuously renew itself by deeply learning from Western civilization and how to resist Western-Eastern shared modern Gnostic movements constitutes a much grander historical question.

Another book that delves into Voegelin’s philosophy of history and articulates the Chinese order from a Confucian viewpoint is Chen’s The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach (2023). Chen’s book, spanning three volumes in over a thousand pages, is divided into an introduction plus three parts. The first part analyzes the reconstruction of historical universality, the second part examines the “world historical process,” and the third part explores “world order, the symbiosis of multiple civilizations, and the meaning of history.”

Chen’s overarching framework is clear, that is, to conceive a new philosophy of history for modern Chinese nation. To achieve this goal, Chen first critically assesses the existing heritage of the philosophy of history, primarily the universal philosophy of history in the West. On this basis, Chen seeks to expound a philosophy of history that transcends the Hegelian philosophy of history centered on the idea of “freedom” and to develop his Confucian philosophy of history, the “fulfillment of humanity.” Finally, Chen focuses on the capability of his philosophy of history regarding world history, including reconstructing “the order of world history” and reinterpreting the foundation of the Chinese nation as a “historical nation” (Chen 2023, 3).

In short, although both books, based on Voegelin’s philosophy of history, analyze the Chinese order from a Confucian tradition, there are significant differences. Tang’s book explicates Chinese order based on Voegelin’s philosophy of order. In contrast, Chen’s book uses Voegelin as one of the resources to construct his “philosophy of history with civilizational approach.” Tang emphasizes the importance of “transcendence” in the philosophy of history, linking it to the balance of consciousness, leading to an analysis of the experience and symbolizations of classical universal humanity and its Chinese version of the “psychologiae order” articulated in a cosmological style” in response to the modern Gnostic movement. In contrast, Chen emphasizes the diversity of the process of history, connecting it to the truth of the Chinese Zhongdao, leading to a search for a foundation for the Chinese nation as a historical nation in the modern world. Tang’s book reflects the confrontation between the classic and the modern, while Chen’s book reflects the Chinese seeking recognition in the modern secular world.

Leap in Being and Art of Balance: Supplementing and Correcting Eric Voegelin’s Analysis of Chinese Civilization in the Light of Philosophy of Order
By Wenming Tang
Beijing, China: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2023; 434pp

The Philosophy of History with Civilizational Approach
By Yun Chen
Shanghai, China: Shanghai People’s Press, 2023; 1072pp

Print