The main reason for my interest in the Analects and the Daodejing is that they focus on providing practical solutions to real-world problems.
Unlike many of the works in the Western philosophical cannon, they don’t feature any agonized searches for a universal “truth” or any promises of eternal salvation for ascribing to the “right” set of values or behaving in the “correct” manner. Instead, they are concerned with dealing with the challenges of the here and now, exploring how you can improve your character to make a greater contribution to the stability and prosperity of your family, community, and society overall.
Even though the approaches of the Analects and the Daodejing are very different, both sets of teachings can be seen as primers for the elite of their time on what we would today describe as situational or contextual leadership.
Rather than providing comprehensive checklists or blueprints for you to follow, they offer a loose set of principles and processes for you to apply in response to the specific demands of any situation that you may encounter. In other words, the teachings encourage you to make pragmatic decisions that draw on the realities of the situation you are faced with instead of exhorting you to make dogmatic judgments based on rigid theories and ideologies.
For Confucius, building up effective situational leadership capabilities required the assiduous cultivation of your moral character through the diligent study of the ancient classics and the rigorous practice of ancient rituals (禮/lǐ) to inculcate best behavioral practices in your psyche.
For Laozi, on the other hand, it meant stripping all the artificial labels and preconceptions from your brain so that you could adopt a disposition of effortless action (無為/wúwéi) and only intervene when absolutely necessary.
Not surprisingly, there have been extensive debates between adherents over the validity of these two approaches to situational leadership (including some entertaining jabs at po-faced Confucian orthodoxy in the Daodejing and Zhuangzi), but it’s important to remember that they both had the same ultimate goal of a smooth-running society rather than divine deliverance in mind.
I’ll be examining their respective merits and drawbacks in future entries.