1) First, I cannot really agree with you that Bell equates Chinese traditional culture with Confucianism alone. He
never states this anywhere so I am wondering on what grounds you are basing your opinion (not to fight by any means,
but rather I am curious). Because Bell never states this I think it has to be assumed that– like most people– while
Bell sees Confucianism as one significant philosophy informing what you call traditional Chinese culture– that of
course he knows that there are also Daoist, Legalist, Buddhist, Christian, and other influences.

2) Slowboat: Your remarks on “in times of crisis” puzzled me.
At first I wasn’t going to say anything because I figured you were referring to maybe something which I have not read
but curiosity is getting the better of me (and yes I know what happened to the cat!)

Does Bell anywhere explicitely state that crisis and conflict are the (only) normative basis against which rights
are measured?? Or does he in fact suggest that crises *may* justify the curtailment of rights if it’s shown that
that curtailment is necessary to overcome the crisis.

Hey Konrad, if you see this: Merry Christmas! (and what about putting a “recent comments” section up on the left?)

sorry also for the typos and the lack of substance in my response above.

’tis the season to be busy to death!

my throw-away comment: Bell backs himself out of the idea of a universal conception of human rights by focusing on the processes and procedures by which China and the West respectively seek to safeguard public well-being in times of crisis. In so doing, Bell makes two errors:

1. He unjustifiably concludes that because these policies and procedures are different, so too must the end result–that is, that each society’s conception of “human rights” must also be different. And,

2. He establishes crisis and conflict as the normative basis against which “human rights” are measured.

Do you have a copy of the book? p.63 does not come up on Google books for me. I would not be at all surprised to find that the reviewer is distorting what Bell said, but what I could see of the chapter did not impress me much.

1. Bell himself appears *not* to have said:

t is within the karaoke bar that the bonding properties of music – so beloved of Confucians – become manifest. If the hostesses offer sex as well as harmonious conversation, that too is as the Sage Master might wish. “I never met anyone,” he told his 5th-century BC students approvingly, “who values virtue more than physical beauty.”

this statement was made by a reviewer of his here.

i think that this is probably not as clear to the reader’s of Alan’s post above as he intended it to be.

2. as Chris just noted, “The translation of the passage itself is not problematic,” though it’s less than perfect. rather, the suggestion that Confucius would approve that anyone value physical beauty above virtue is misleading.

3. Bell’s thoughts re. Confucian karaoke appear around p. 63 of his book.

Peony,
I would define sex culture as the set of beliefs and practices that center around sex in any given culture. Most of what I know about that in China comes from.

Farrer, James. Opening Up: Youth Sex Culture and Market Reform in Shanghai. 1st ed. University Of Chicago Press, 2002.

Something seems wrong here. I’m rushing at the moment, so this has to quick (airport run, hordes of arriving family). If that is how Bell translates 9.18, as an _approving_ comment by the master, then he’s dead wrong. The translation of the passage itself is not problematic, I don’t think. It’s the addition of “…he told his 5th century BC students approvingly…”. Clearly Confucius is bemoaning this, not celebrating it. To value physical beauty more than virtue is xiao ren, not junzi.

Are you sure this is Bell? I did a books.google search on the book, and inserted that sentence, and I can’t find it in the book. I wonder if the reviewer is adding this.

When I get more time, I’ll dig deeper. If anyone else has the time, though, feel free!

Side note: I think the disagreements we are having at my place are separate from this issue, though, regardless of how this admittedly odd point is resolved.