Are the Components of MacIntyre’s Framework Meaningful in a
Confucian Tradition?
Introduction
The recent past has seen MacIntyre’s modern virtue ethics emerge as an important
alternative perspective to the ethical theories stemming from the Enlightenment, but
MacIntyre’s concepts were developed mainly in the context of Anglo-American
capitalism. It has been recognised that other forms of capitalism may be ‘more
conducive to practice-like conduct of production’, such as Germany (Keat, 2008).
In the Far East Confucius can be said to have played a role similar to that of Aristotle
in the West and Confucianism continues to have a strong influence on Eastern
societies such as Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan
(Braudel, 1995; G. K. Y. Chan, 2008; Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
Despite these similarities, it is clear that such Confucian societies have developed in
different ways from those in the Anglo-American world. Since they have their own
unique cultures and traditions, it cannot be assumed that the concepts of modern
virtue ethics will automatically apply to them. Also drawing on insights from
institutional theory, in the remainder of my Ph.D. I propose to attempt to determine
whether these concepts are meaningful in the Confucian business context of Taiwan
and so see if evidence can be found in support of whether they are generally
applicable and valid. If differences are found, then this knowledge may be valuable
to establish where the concepts require adaptation to be more generally valid, and to
determine the contribution that Confucianism may be able to make to modern virtue
ethics.
Literature Review
In this section, the relevant literature will be reviewed in order to assess current
ideas and concepts within the appropriate academic areas. However, it is assumed
that the reader is familiar with the concepts of Aristotle and MacIntyre, and so, for
these, only those especially relevant to the purposes of this paper will be mentioned.
Firstly, in order to have an understanding of current thinking in MacIntyre’s concept
of virtue, Aristotelian concepts will be briefly examined leading up to the work of
Alasdair MacIntyre. Secondly, the behaviour of institutions within the wider
environment will be assessed by means of institutional theory. Finally, aspects of Far
Eastern culture and tradition will be considered by looking at Confucian thought and
concepts, before the history of Taiwan is taken into account.
Aristotle played an important part in the foundation of the relevant Western concepts,
and these were further developed by the contemporary philosopher Alasdair
MacIntyre. MacIntyre’s virtues-goods-practice-institution framework can be
complemented by ideas from institutional theory to develop a concept of how
organisational virtue is influenced by the institutional environment.
Most importantly, the concepts covered by Aristotelianism, modern virtue ethics and
Confucianism range from the level of the individual up to that of wider society,
including organisations. The contextual role played by tradition not only has an
important influence on in modern virtue ethics and Confucianism, but also on the
concept of the institutional environment in institutional theory. It shapes the social
environment in which organisations operate and in which they need to maintain their
social legitimacy.
Virtue Ethics and Aristotelian Concepts
The important aspects of Aristotelian thought for this study are the consideration of
what it is to be human, but as a social being that defines itself in terms of man-ascould-be rather than man-as-is, and also the concepts of telos and eudaimonia.
It is important to consider these factors in the context of community as opposed to
that of the individual. For example, friendship is an important virtue for Aristotle
(Kallenberg, 1997; Lutz, 2012, p. 114) which holds the community together, whether
this is a community of citizens in a polis (an ancient Greek city-state) or of family
members in a household.
MacIntyre’s general theory of virtue-goods-practices-institution
Alasdair MacIntyre argues that the Enlightenment rejected the Aristotelian concept of
telos, leading to over-dependence on rationalism and to the destruction of traditional
beliefs but leaving no alternative coherent belief system in their place (Beadle &
Moore, 2011). He proposes a neo-Aristotelian approach – a return to an ethic of
virtue including a return to teleology (Lutz, 2012, p. 71) - and argues that “a unitary
core concept of the virtues” drawn from reflection on historical notions of excellence,
must proceed through three levels. The first level is the concrete experience of the
demands of a practice. The second is the narrative order of a human life and third is
moral tradition (2007 P. 186-187).
Practices – Institution, Narrative Quest, Tradition
Practices have four distinctive characters according to MacIntyre’s definition. They
are socially established and cooperative activities (Moore, 2011; 2012b), they make
available internal goods, they have historically determined standards of excellence,
and their standards are systematically extended by practitioners over time.
Modern virtue ethics is relevant not only at level of the individual, but also at that of
the organisation, as shown in the example of the fishing crews. Practices are not
carried out by individuals alone, but in communities or organisations of practitioners.
The narrative quest is the next concept concerning the virtues. Human actions are
to be understood only by embedding them in an ongoing narrative that gives them
meaning and point (MacIntyre, 2007, pp. 208-219; Porter, 2003), and this requires
considering the context of the relationships in which the person is involved. All social
life is narrated, so that even though the individual’s narrative gives meaning to their
individual life, we live our lives within a social and historical context. Therefore, we
are intertwined with community, society and history (MacIntyre p.,218) .
Moral tradition is the third important element that MacIntyre discussed in relation to
virtues, and three elements are important here. Firstly, tradition is the logical
extension of narrative, an on-going, open-ended inquiry (Kallenberg, 1997; Lutz,
2012, p. 128; Porter, 2003, p. 43). Secondly, a tradition is “socially embodied”
because traditions are lived in communities (Kallenberg, 1997). Finally, traditions, if
they are living, always embody “continuities of conflict” (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 222) not
only between supporters of the tradition and its opponents, but also internally among
those who would interpret its central beliefs in different ways (MacIntyre, 1988, p. 12).
Institution
According to MacIntyre (2007), practices need to be protected because otherwise
they will not be sustained. However, the institutions in which they are housed need
to be concerned with external goods, such as success, reputation and profit, to be
able to sustain not only themselves but also the practices of which they are the
bearers (MacIntyre, 2007, p. 194). Consequently, there will always be a tension in
maintaining the balance between external and internal goods, and the virtues such
as justice, courage and truthfulness are needed for the practices not to be corrupted.
This relationship between practices and institutions provides a means of
conceptualising organisations and is shown in the model in Figure 1. The large circle
shows an organisation’s core practices though which internal goods are obtained. In
contrast, the small circle containing “P” represents the practices of making and
sustaining the institution (Beadle & Moore, 2011; Moore & Beadle, 2006). This model
can then be used as the basis of empirical research as will be considered below.
Figure 1: Moore and Beadle's Representation Of The Organisation As A PracticeInstitution Combination (Moore & Beadle, 2006)
Although there is often debate about whether modern business organisations can be
regarded as institutions in this sense, for the purposes of this study, the argument
proposed by Beadle and Moore (2011) will be followed - that any organisation
housing practices may be re-described as a practice-institution combination’ from the
perspective of organisational studies. This can include business organisations.
Moore and Beadle (2006) discussed three preconditions necessary for practices not
to corrupted by the institution – virtuous agents at the level of both the practice and
the institution, a conducive mode of institutionalisation and a conducive environment.
This focus of this work will be on the influence of institutionalisation and the external
environment. It will review how power is distributed throughout the organisation and
whether decision-making is more likely to be rational and in the interests of the
organisation as a whole instead of being liable to excessive influence from individual
parties, such as managers focussed on external goods. Also, the wider environment
has an important influence on the organisation in that the general morals and
traditions of the society in which the organisation operates will have an influence on
the behaviour of the individuals within the organisation. Consequently, when
considering virtue within organisations, it is important to also consider the influences
to which organisations are subject from the wider environment, the mode of
institutionalisation and the effect these may have on agent behaviour.
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory can be helpful in this context since it considers how the
organisation is influenced by, and adapts to, its environment. Through the process of
institutionalisation, it can become ‘infused with value’ (Selznick, 1957) and become
an institution, and so more easily acquire the legitimacy required in order to operate
within society. Institutionalisation refers to the process whereby organisations
change into institutions, especially this idea of institutions being loaded with value
(Scott, 1987). Legitimacy is a cultural concept which is dependent on the values and
traditions of the society in which the organisation operates. Zucker (1983) believes
that organisations need to be adapt to a shared view of what organisations should
look like and how they should behave from the environment to maintain their social
legitimacy.
Up to this point, studies using MacIntyre’s practice-institution understanding of
organisations have not drawn specifically on such insights from institutional theory.
While this study will do so, and so extend previous applications of MacIntyre’s
conceptual framework, it will also try to accomplish this in a novel context – that of
Taiwan. In Taiwan, Confucianism has a strong influence on all aspects of life and so
also on the social legitimacy which organisations must have to survive.
Consequently, it is important to have an understanding of Confucianism when
looking at how Taiwanese organisations operate.
Confucianism
Similar to Aristotelian thought, Confucianism is a virtue-based system of ethics (Ip,
2009b; Ivanhoe, 2002; Sim, 2007; Tiwald, 2010; Yu, 2007). Confucian societies
emphasise interpersonal relationships and harmony at personal, family and societal
levels. It emphasises that a person’s moral traits need to be consciously cultivated
(G. K. Y. Chan, 2008; Ip, 2009b) and so can also be described as a character-based
ethical system. It is concerned with the dao (way) for a person to become good,
which is approached by focusing on the cultivation of de (virtue). This enables the
person to become a junzi (excellent person) - a moral person with an essentially
social nature, having a purposeful life constrained and directed by virtue (Lin et al.,
2012; Yu, 2007).
In this way, Confucianism emphasises both internal development and external
engagement in a continuous process of mutual reinforcement (Ip, 2009b). It
concentrates on humanistic, obligation-based behaviour and is collectivistic in nature
(W. Chan, 1963; Ip, 1996; 2004; 2009a). The primary concern is with the human
condition and how well-being is maintained in society. There is a focus on the
obligation of a person’s role - the morality of human conduct is mainly expressed in
terms of obligation and obligation exchanges. It is collectivist because it emphasises
the importance of collective values and interests over and above the values and
interests of the individual (Ip, 2009b). It is important that a person knows their
position in the social hierarchy (Ip, 2009a; 2009b). Therefore, Confucian ethics are
very much concerned with hierarchy, guanxi (relationships), social traditions and
harmony (G. K. Y. Chan, 2008). In particular, traditional patterns of subordination
and obedience within families and acceptance of the dominant authority of the father,
in keeping with Confucian doctrines, play an important role in the structure of
authority relations within both families and wider society.
For Confucianism, the ultimate goal is social harmony. Harmony is the fundamental
value of Confucianism - it is seen as the primary goal of personal and social life. At
a personal level, you need to be a junzi (excellent person) who exemplifies virtue
and also helps others in the pursuit of the virtues in order to achieve social harmony.
Therefore, it is important to practice certain core elements – ren (compassion,
benevolence, human excellence), yi (righteousness, appropriateness) and li
(etiquette, ritual) in order to achieve this goal in society. These elements “define
what is morally acceptable in human society” (Ip, 2009b, p. 464).
Similarities between Confucius and Aristotle
In contemporary studies of ethics, both Confucianism and Aristotelian thought have
been named as ‘virtue ethics’ because both philosophies focus on human virtues.
There is no lack of studies comparing Confucian and Aristotelian philosophies (G. K.
Y. Chan, 2008; Provis, 2010; Sim, 2007; Yu, 2007) and neo-Aristotelians, like
MacIntyre, take Confucianism seriously as a genuine rival moral tradition (1991).
Since both philosophies are virtue based, there are similarities between the two but
also differences.
Firstly, both ethic systems are concerned with the whole life of a human being and
both choose to focus on the virtues that make people be good (Yu 2007, p.21; Sim
2007 p.2). Confucianism believes that human nature can be improved and Mencius
describes what a person can be if they fully develop their humanity. This is paralleled
by MacIntyre’s interpretation of Aristotle contrasting “man-as-he-happens-to-be and
man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realised-his fundamental-nature”. Both hold the idea that
virtue is a combination of natural traits and those gained through learning and
practicing (Yu, 2007, pp. 116-117).
Secondly, both philosophies emphasise the significance of exemplary individuals
(junzi / phronomos) for guidance and training and the importance of the context of
social and political institutions, such as the family and the community, for the shaping
of moral thought and practice (G. K. Y. Chan, 2008; Sim, 2007) p. 24, Yu 2007 22).
Thirdly, both systems respect traditional rites (li) and social customs (ethos - habit)
as ways of developing the emotional aspect of virtue (Sim, 2007 Ch. 5; Yu, 2007 Ch.
4) (Provis, 2010; ). Both are ways for the individual to take on board values held dear
by society and are processes of emotional training demonstrating the ‘mean’ or
appropriateness. The self is shaped and transformed through repeated practice,
which can be viewed as the institutionalisation of action.
Finally, both systems are based on the need for the execution of ‘practices’ to
achieve the virtues and for cultivation in order to develop character. Aristotle
stressed that ethics is a practical science which is concerned with action rather than
a set of theoretical knowledge about the right action. Confucius emphasised the
importance of practice (G. K. Y. Chan, 2008; Yu, 2007). Both highlighted the
relationship between the virtues and human flourishing (Tiwald, 2010).
Differences between Confucius and Aristotle
Although family life is essential for both Aristotle and Confucius, how the family
relates to the state is very different from each perspective. In Confucianism, the
individual is interpreted in connection with the community in which the person is a
part. A person’s identity and place in the community are to be understood through
their social attachments and positions in the social hierarchy (G. K. Y. Chan, 2008; Ip,
2009b; Yao, 1996). Because of this concept of socially embedded nature, a person’s
life is bounded by the relationships they have and which they are obliged to fulfil. An
individual is seen as a social being - there is no individual in the egoistic sense with
individual rights as conceived by liberal thinking in the west (Ip, 2009b; MacIntyre,
2004). As a form of familial collectivism, Confucianism always ranks collective
values over individual values. Within such a value framework, Confucianism
enforced concepts of authority, paternalism and hierarchy. These provided moral
legitimacy and stability to the imperial power, society and family-based seniority and
authority from a top-down system of social interaction. Furthermore, Confucius sees
the state as an extension of the family – the relation between emperor and ruled is
very much reflected to the relation between father and son in a larger scale (G. K. Y.
Chan, 2008; Sim p.17 & 19).
In contrast, Aristotelian ethics pays more attention to the metaphysical self based on
the doctrine of the soul (Sim, 2007). Aristotle’s metaphysics is mainly focused on the
individual (Sim, 2007). He also distinguishes between different types of family
relationships and emphases that there are important differences between all these
family relations and “friendships” among a citizenry of equals (Sim p.19). The private
life is distinguished from public life the political institution does not represent
biological family life. Political life and social institutions grow out of the family to
develop a sphere of their own (Sim p.17).
MacIntyre (1991) compared the two systems and summarised that, for Confucius,
the virtues were not unitary – for example, a thief could demonstrate the virtue of
courage whilst being dishonest at the same time. Aristotle, however, considered that
the virtues were unitary and were dependent on one another. Also, Confucianism
contained little explicit theorising whereas Aristotelianism was based on a complex
system of ideas involving such concepts as telos and eudaimonia (well-being). This
idea was developed by Hall and Ames (1987), who stated that classical Chinese
thinking was primarily based on an aesthetic order, whereas traditional Western
thinking was more of a rational order (Sim, 2007; Tiwald, 2010).
Incommensurability
Having now considered the relevant concepts from both philosophies, it is important
to address the argument of incommensurability – the idea that such theories cannot
be compared with each other in a meaningful way because of their different
backgrounds, histories and cultures.
MacIntyre (1991) considered that theories of virtue should be universal, and not just
applicable to ancient Greece or China – “the claims of such a theory must concern
human rather than Chinese or Greek excellence” (MacIntyre, 1991, p. 104). Mahood
(1974) stated that each theory was based on its own assumptions and this idea was
taken up by Cua (1985), although he was primarily looking at language issues.
MacIntyre (1991) summarised these points by arguing that whilst language can be a
barrier, even perfect translations have their limits because translations inevitably
lead to a loss of the original context in which words and ideas are expressed. The
two or more systems of thought and practice have their own concepts influenced by
history, culture and custom - therefore they are incommensurable. However, this
does not necessarily mean forever - it may only be for a certain period of time. In
order to truly understand a philosophy, it is necessary to understand it in its own
terms, which involves the assumptions, words, contexts and environment influences
peculiar to that philosophy. In this way, it is similar to learning a second language but
you must be able to speak the second language as a mother tongue in order to be
able to understand these particular contextual factors completely.
However, MacIntyre (1992, p.45 – 46) used an example to demonstrate the
possibility of commensurability – the ‘mutual recognition’ that painters in Japan and
the West developed. Shared standards were discovered within the practice of
painting, enabling them to make cultural judgements of the similarities and
differences – about works of art, the standards governing artistic practices and
aesthetic evaluation. However, each practice remains rooted in its own social and
cultural tradition.
His argument is not without criticism – Yu (2007, p7) described it as ‘oversimplified
and problematic’. Just because two different philosophical systems are different does
not mean that they are incommensurable and that they should not be studied
together. If that were the case, then different moral traditions within the European
tradition are also incommensurable (Ibid).
Incommensurability does not rule out or stop mutual understanding and intellectual
dialogue. Yu and Sim (2007) consequently argue that comparison is not the issue
but rather how it should be done properly and how the relevant concepts can be
explained correctly. It is self-evident that different traditions have different concepts,
custom, assumptions, sociologies and psychologies. These differences are not
insurmountable obstacles to comparisons but revealing and appreciating these
differences can benefit mutual understanding (Yu & Sim 2007).
MacIntyre’s methodology for rational comparison among incommensurable traditions
also has been questioned by Rosemont (2004). There are other issues which need
to be take into consideration, such as linguistic hegemony, differing views of
rationality and different analytical writing styles. These often lead to non-western
philosophers’ works not being taken seriously.
Nussbaum (1988) believes that, although human beings use different languages to
express their emotions and feelings, we all live in the same world, possess the same
intuitive capacities and share many similar basic relationships and institutions such
as father-son, brothers, family, friends, community and politics. Therefore, there is a
set of basic desires, feelings, beliefs and needs, which, for all human beings, are
necessary to live and to share. This common ground can be called the “human
grounding experience” - this is the “reasonable starting point for cross cultural
reflection” (Nussbaum, 1988, p. 49).
Having considered Confucianism, it is also necessary to review the history of Taiwan
in order to be able to gain an understanding of the environment in which Taiwanese
businesses, the subject of the empirical study, operate.
Taiwan
Taiwan was first incorporated into China around 400 years and it remained a
Chinese province until the Japanese occupation (1895 – 1945). Significant
immigration from China meant that the governing system was developed according
to Confucian ethical norms and values during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries and Taiwanese society became essentially Chinese in all important
respects. From the social perspective, the Confucian ethical system came to play a
dominant role, especially its focus on the family, which became seen as the primary
social unit central to Taiwan’s culture. This was identical to the Chinese tradition
where people strongly valued, idealised and identified with their families (Gate 1987).
The influence of the Chinese family lead to it becoming the basic unit of economic
action and consumption and this, together with the distinctive authority structure of
the family, is a vital element in the development of Taiwanese society and its
business system, which has been emphasised by many authors (Gates 1987;
Greenhalgh 1988; Hamilton 1997; Gray 2002). In particular, traditional patterns of
subordination and obedience within families and acceptance of the dominant
authority of the father, in keeping with Confucian doctrines, remain influential in
Taiwan and play an important role in the structure of authority relations within familyowned businesses. It also resulted in the fact that trust and commitment stayed
within families and that non-family members were distrusted (Hamilton and Kao
1990). This pattern still survives strongly in Taiwan.
Political considerations are another important factor influencing Taiwan’s business
system. When Chiang Kai-shek together with his followers moved to Taiwan in 1949,
he acted very much like a traditional mainland Chinese leader, concerned with
limiting the power of private wealth holders, especially that of his own supporters.
The state remained suspicious and concerned that large, privately owned
concentrations of economic resources were a potential threat to its power (Gold
1986, 1988). Rather than encourage small business to grow, the state was more
concerned with preventing the growth of large Taiwanese enterprises. The result of
this is that, in Taiwan, small businesses thrive and are run by families, most of them
Taiwanese. To the present day, the SME sector still dominates the export trade and
is the major employer in Taiwan.
As late as 1999, the state still maintained ownership of the larger, upstream capitalintensive sector, agriculture and new industries of the economy (Whitley, 1999).
This view was partly legitimated by national father Sun Yat-sen’s economic
philosophy, which emphasised the need for a strong state guardian of the economic
system through state ownership and control of the banking system and of heavy
industry. He believed that concentration of capital in private hands would be the root
of misery, but small enterprises were thought to be appropriate for private ownership
(Wade, 1990). However, Taiwan’s economic policies changed significantly in the
late 80’s/ early 90’s, with a transition from state capitalism to a general adoption of
neo-liberal policies (Chung & Luo, 2008)
All these unique factors lead to Taiwan’s form of capitalism being different from that
which developed in other countries. This different development is emphasised by
Grey (2002) and Whitley (1999) who argue that capitalism in different countries will
inevitably develop in different forms, due to their differing social, political and
historical traditions.
Discussion and Conclusion
The concepts reviewed above in the literature review form the background against
which empirical research will be carried out in Taiwan. It is hoped that the results
found can then be applied in a consideration of the following issues.
The concept cannot automatically be taken to be as universally valid as the law of
gravity and to be applicable to Confucian societies, since these societies have
different cultures and traditions. Consequently, this study will investigate whether the
components of MacIntyre’s framework are meaningful in a Confucian context –
practices housed in institutions, the narrative understanding of human life and moral
tradition. If they are meaningful, it will be investigated whether there are differences
in the content of these categories. For example, do the concepts of internal and
external goods and practice-institutions have the same meaning as in the AngloAmerican world? Does application of Confucian concepts, such as ren, yi and li,
produce any fresh insights? It may be found that such factors as tradition play a
stronger role in Taiwan, and that this not only reinforces MacIntyrean concepts in this
area, but also leads to an elaboration of the schema.
Whilst empirical studies have investigated the applicability in the UK (Moore, 2012a),
more recently a study in Sri Lanka (Anon, 2013) concluded that MacIntyre’s
framework is applicable to the non Anglo-American world. One finding is that the Sri
Lankan firms studied appear to be more excellence oriented than the UK firm studied.
The business culture in Sri Lanka places more value on ‘soft’ management aspects,
such as loyalty, trust and cooperation, than on ‘hard’ factors such as profit. This
supports the view that other forms of capitalism may be ‘more conducive to practicelike conduct of production’ (Keat, 2008). Will a similar result be found in Taiwan, or
will the result resemble that found in the Anglo-American capitalism system, possibly
due to the shift in Taiwan’s policies towards neo-liberal policies after 1990?
It is noticeable that small and medium size enterprises (SME) dominate Taiwan’s
economy. 78% of Taiwan’s workforce work for SME (Small And Medium Enterprise
Administration, 2013), compared to 59% in the UK (add reference). How will this
affect the findings? Will it be found that SME’s are more virtuous than larger
businesses? Will this go some way to address MacIntyre’s criticism of corporations
and businesses?
MacIntyre recognises that institutions are rooted in the society in which they are
based and institutional theory can be used to examine the interaction between
organisations and this wider environment. In this respect, factors resulting from the
more unique features of Taiwan, such as its social and economic history, the
dominant role of the state, Confucian culture and the divergent form of capitalism
(Whitley, 1999), will be analysed, including how organisations secure their social
legitimacy. Given that Taiwan’s economic policy changed significantly in the late
1980’s, with a transition from state capitalism to a general adoption of neo-liberal
policies (Chung & Luo, 2008), what effect has this had on the institutional
environment, and consequently on the tension between internal and external goods
within organisations?
In summary, it is hoped that, if differences are found, the resulting knowledge can be
applied so as to benefit both Confucian and MacIntyrean concepts. It is hoped that
this study can at least open a practical dialogue between these two traditions to see
whether they can learn anything from each other.