13:23
Confucius said, “The superior man is conciliatory but does not identify himself with others; the inferior man identifies with others but is not conciliatory.” 1
The essence of this passage is that it is willingness to remain in harmony with others without sacrificing individuality makes a person better. The passage then says that when the circumstance is already harmonious, for example a group of friends having a productive time in a meaningful debate, the ‘superior man’ amongst them would keep in mind to contribute well toward a fruitful discussion, agreeing to the things they truly understand and disagreeing respectfully to those they do not believe in, while the ‘inferior’ one might agree to everything the group says is correct but argue, even illogically, against a stranger who might tell them they are wrong. The ‘superior’ one would carefully listen and ensure a thoughtful response instead of a merely defensive one for the sake of the group.
It is interesting how this passage is worded: that the same idea is explained twice with both ways as inverse parallels of the other. This helps highlight the point on what it means to be conciliatory. To be conciliatory means to have an attitude toward keeping peace and avoiding conflict, however the same passage reminds, it does not mean to simply ‘identify with others’. Why this is important to remember is because one can very easily ‘keep peace’ and ‘avoid conflict’ by simply blending in with the rest. One cannot ensue trouble if one is safely hidden away in groups or masses: it would be the other that had verbalised the idea who would be responsible for the said idea and not the person who merely agrees. The agree-er can simply hide (the word ‘inferior’ itself connotes a ‘going under’) behind the one who initiated. And if everyone else agrees with the idea, then there is no need to hide. Simply all would be well.
But that situation may not exactly be ‘conciliatory’ even if it seems to be so. Although ‘peace’ is kept and no conflict happens, it will only be because essentially nothing would happen. If everyone agrees then the discussion ends. If someone else is responsible for thinking then no thinking needs to occur. What is the man doing then? Nothing, at least nothing in terms of being conciliatory. The only action being accomplished is that act of identifying with others.
Again, that is why it is so effective for ‘conciliatory’ to be juxtaposed to ‘identifying with others’ because many times both courses of action seem so similar. Is not ‘being conciliatory’ the same as ‘making compromises’ which is also ‘losing individuality for the sake of others’? No, but it can easily look like they are. A ‘compromise’ effectively means that something has to be lost, right? Yet in the case of a compromise for the sake of peace, it may simply mean something like the phrase “agreeing to disagree”. A shallow look on the idea of a compromise may say: “All right, my hands are up. You win.” That is not compromise, but only a form of giving up—end of action, nothing is accomplished further.
True compromise is this: “Let us let the differences side by side and allow both to freely exist.” Or: “I believe in what I said but what you said is also valid.” There are many other forms of a true compromise but it can be easily identified with the opposite concept of ‘identifying with others’. A true compromise must necessarily acknowledge differences because those are the factors to be compromised upon. Hence, when one becomes ‘conciliatory’ and initiates a compromise, one says, “This is me; that is you. Let us act together even if we are not the same.”
That something needs to be done and that this doing is what makes a person ‘superior’ while another remains ‘inferior’ also implies another observation about human nature. Hence, the main point of this can possibly be even simpler: that the quality of a person is determined by what they do (which also means ‘and what they do not do’). The ‘superior man’ and the ‘inferior man’ may be equal in their essence as they are both men, but one is ‘superior’ because it is they who exercises their humanity by taking harmoniously individual actions. Can air that does not blow be considered wind? With or without movement, air will always be air; yet air can be ‘clean air’ or ‘polluted air’ or ‘tornado’ or ‘a gentle breeze’. And to a person on a long journey on foot, one kind is better than another. Same to a person sitting with a book outside hoping for an afternoon of respite.
In other words, the passage says it is best to take a gentler sort of action—as in do something, but not over-do it. Season the steak, instead of serving it salt-and-pepper-less, and cook it on appropriate heat. Yes, some people prefer a certain amount of salt on their steak, and others with no pepper (I personally do not agree to the latter), and there are those who like it medium-rare, still others well-done. However, it is no good serving unseasoned, uncooked meat. Unless the meat is fish and it is supposed to be raw and plain—in that case, that is not steak and so it ought not be identified as anything other than itself.
I see how this passage works well in on the Korean series <갯마을 차차차>, also called Hometown Cha Cha Cha as its English title. There Hyejin, a dentist from Seoul struggles to adapt to the rural life in Gongjin where she starts a new life and practice. The people in Gongjin are nosy, rude, and simply too bothersome for her: they keep inviting her to events (she is quite closed-off and introverted) and gossiping about her. That is why at the start she keeps getting into conflict with them, including Dushik who tries to help her and everyone else adapt to the Seoulite.
Dushik reminds both sides when they have crossed the line, not to reprimand, but to help in making sure the community will end up for the better. He tells Hyejin when she needs to be more thoughtful of others, reminding her more than once that she lives in a society and that “You cannot pick up spilt milk but you can at least apologise for spilling it” after a hurtful word said about another community member. All these while helping the others understand why she acts differently (and indifferently, in the beginning at least) toward them or why she may do things they do not understand because of the differences in cultures of those from the city and from the rural seaside village of Gong-jin. However, Dushik is also quick to put a halt in conflicts, choosing to respond once (always calmly) and then leaving if necessary whenever Hyejin would say something thoughtless (but hurtful, nonetheless) until both eventually learned to accept their differences as ‘interesting’ and not anymore ‘annoying’. Dushik as well goes by a philosophy of counter-culture, insisting to talk in 반말 or casual language to everyone (for the sake of more Western culture-like ‘friendliness’) but adjusts to 존댓말 (formal speaking) when the situation calls for it. Yet whatever the form of his sentences are, the content are always of the truth.
Hyejin, too, albeit not as careful as Dushik when it comes to interacting with others, is always quick to realise her faults and apologise for them. Additionally, she also proves that she is not beyond (or behind) forgiving others, even at times initiating the reconciliation. Once when a community member hurt both her and her dentistry clinic because of gossip and that member got into a situation that needed her help, she did not hesitate. Afterwards, she was even the one who approached her first to invite her back to her clinic so she could continue helping. All without failing to mention that if she continues her previous actions, she can get in trouble again.
The whole series thus far shows how these two main characters embody this ‘superior man’ the passage talks about (which makes it interesting to remember that Korean culture is largely influenced by Confucianism). Dushik tells of a homegrown who can easily adapt to other cultures, while Hyejin is one who may stumble when it comes to interactions with others yet still tries and takes whatever action is necessary. And again, maybe that is all that matters: that people try, that people take action as an attempt to be better because the only sure way to ‘inferiority’ is to not take action at all.
Reference:
1Manuel B. Dy, Jr. Readings in Chinese Philosophy, e-version, from the Loyola Schools Bookstore. Ateneo de Manila University Press.