Lewis and Kling’s new book offers wide-ranging discussion of classical Chinese philosophical arguments in the context of perennial and contemporary sociopolitical issues, providing in-depth case studies that ground theoretical analysis in real-world instances of political disagreement, injustice and oppression. Their book also challenges views of political philosophy dominated by western thought to provide a more globalized perspective.
“Contemporary Politics and Classical Chinese Thought: Toward Globalizing Political Philosophy” was published by Oxford University Press in 2024.
To share more, Lewis and Kling answered seven questions about their book.
1. If you were describing your book to someone outside of your field, what would you say?
Political debates often hit dead ends. We show that applying classical Chinese thought to contemporary problems like pervasive political narratives, geographical separation and community solidarity, modern policing structures and practices, the social and legal place of robots and AI, private militias and paramilitary groups, and revolution, can help us make progress on these tricky issues.
2. How did you get the idea for your project?
Kling: Our offices are next door to each other; Colin is an expert on classical Chinese thought, while I am an expert on contemporary political theory. We got to talking about various debates and issues in each of our respective subfields of study, and in each case, we found that ideas, concepts, and intellectual “moves” from our relevant areas were applicable, in sometimes surprising ways, to each other’s work. As a result, we started generating complementary discourses about a series of topics, developed a framework for discussion, and then we were off to the races! As a result, the book is a series of essays, each of which outlines a well-known contemporary political issue/debate and then applies a strand of classical Chinese thought to it to generate new ways of thinking and potential (unexpected) solutions.
3. Did your focus develop or change throughout the research and writing process?
Before the book, we were working on a series of standalone essays ranging from theories of legitimate revolution to rhetoric surrounding equity in the U.S. As these independent projects developed, we recognized that they were all part of a meta-narrative and that, despite their ability to be read and appreciated individually, they were all contributing to the same overarching goal: genuinely shifting how we tend to philosophize about sociopolitical issues out of an exclusively Eurocentric lens and into a critically global perspective. Taking up this critical, global approach empowered us to pursue a more ambitious project, culminating in this book and kicking off a broader research program.
4. Which idea do you write about that most excites, invigorates or inspires you?
We’re most excited to be doing a project, and on that basis launching a research program, that is on the one hand solutions-oriented, pro-justice more equally enjoyed by all, pro-humanity, and pro-fun, and on the other hand is anti-hegemony, anti-parochialism, anti-siloing of discourses and disciplines, and anti-canon. To amend a famous quote, we are here to break down philosophical barriers and chew bubblegum, and we are all out of bubblegum.
5. Describe your writing space. Where do you do your best work? What time of day? Do you have any writing routines you are willing to share?
One of the interesting things about co-authorship is the challenge of coordinating our contributions. Fortunately, we have a history of writing (and teaching) together that allowed us to work harmoniously. Resource-wise, what we found helpful was using online document sharing services, starting with Google Docs before shifting to Dropbox. This allowed us to more easily collaborate even at a distance. That said, we did prefer to sit down together over coffee to more effectively edit our distinct contributions together into a more unified style (and, of course, to address feedback from our reviewers and copyeditors). We also utilized reading passages aloud to check for consistency of style and tone.
6. Is there a favorite quote or passage you want to showcase from the book?
Chapter Six: Is the contemporary United States ripe for a justified revolution? We do not here decide definitively one way or the other, no doubt to the disappointment of some of our readers. However, we do conclude that our Confucian-inspired, relational, virtue-theoretic account sets out clearly the criteria that must be considered before making such a determination. It contains more, and better, resources for thinking through when a revolution would be justified than many of the prominent Western accounts, and has the potential to be developed further into a robust, practical, squarely non-ideal theory of revolution. Our account, in the final analysis, not only provides another lens through which to view the state and revolution against the state, but also enriches our notions of justice and peace by emphasizing, and celebrating, the importance of our qualities of character and our foundational relations with each other.
7. What new questions for future exploration have you discovered?
One of the rich concepts that we have become interested in as part of the basis for our ongoing research program is ritual. Rituals, as construed by the Confucians, are prescriptions for certain behaviors, roles, and practices designed to engender respect and other prosocial tendencies. Rituals are both integral to the formation and maintenance of a culture, as well as tools deployed within the culture to establish general mores and institutional power structures. Rituals and their cultures thus have a symbiotic relationship, with one (in)forming the other and transforming together.
Ideally, the power structures that the Confucians have in mind are benevolent or humane in nature: the Confucians adopt a relatively paternalistic view of the function of ritual to support government and undergird social mores. Yet it is quite clear that, in nonideal circumstances, rituals, as either tools of political institutions or political institutions themselves, are coopted in immoral, oppressive projects.
Despite this, ritual does have prosocial, promoral functions are integral to a community’s functionality. So, rather than throwing out ritual altogether, we recommend critically engaging with problematic ritual structures, diagnosing how they cause or influence oppression, and then reforming them accordingly. This leads to a political and moral project of transforming political conditions both for the community at large and for its individual members, resulting in fundamental moral transformations as well.
UCCS celebrates faculty and staff who author and edit books each year. In recognition of their achievement, and as part of the UCCS Author Spotlight initiative, authors are invited to submit details on their published works.