In essence, then, li not only defines "moral" or proper human conduct; it

also defines what it means to be a person (or a human being), from a Confu-
cian point of view. As for the "moral" fearures of Zi, human beings should
engage only in conduct appropriate to their relationships with others. But
this prescription has direct bearing on what it means to be a human being, as
we are inherently social beings who are nut defined by some abstract inera-
personal characteristic. Instead, we are defined by actual relationships that
vary from person to person and, for the same person, change over time. Thus
we see the main difference betwcexa the Corducian treament of self (person,
o r human being) and the abstract Western concept of self elucidated in the
first part of this chapter." Li must be directed toward someone or something
else--one's anccscors, the gods, oness parents or siblings, one" ssuperiors or
one's friends. And li defines the person.22 Clearly, then, the Confucian con-
cept of self is antithetical to the contemporary Western concept, which con-
ceives of the moral person independently from the detaiis of personal lift,
This discussion of li must nor be permitted to understate the magic that
Confucius saw in the distinctive human ability to form harmonious and
meaningful relationships. For Confucius, "xnoral" action could n e w be just
a nlatcer of habit, Rather, it involves a sincere and dedicated orientation to-
ward the person or (more rarely) the thing being engaged. Confucius saw the
ability to act qpropriately toward one3 co-humans in a resgecdul and dig-
nified way as the essence of all good relationships, and he saw relationships
as the essence of self-of being a person. We simply take li for granted in so
many social conce>;ts, because it has become "second nature," or because we
no longer have to be painfully and self-consciously aware of what we are
doing in those conexts.
To state the malrcr even more serongly, il we take for granted the magical
quality that Confucius saw to be the essence of Zi, rirual would no longer be
proper rimal. It would merely be the rote bchavior that an autornaton could
perform if programmed co do so-not &c personally significant, even sa-
cred, gesture of one human being who stands in relation to another. In other
words, the conventions of li must mean something. Yet this outcome re-
quires something much more mysterious than behavior-something &at
cannot be measured as systematically. I refer here to the proper spirit or con-
scious orientation with which the ritual act must be performed--in short, to
jen.
The following are some themes of jen found in the Analrm (Book:Sec-
tion), (2)Jei.z is hard, a burden, dificuft: (6:20), (8:7), (142). (b) We have the
stmngth. to bcjen; it would be at our side if we wanted it: (4:6), (7:2Y). (c)Jrrt
requires that we care for it: (9~30).(d) The good person speaks little of jen; it
is difficult to capture in words: (?:l), (12:3). (e) The person of jen rests con-
tcxat and is never unsettled or disquieted: (6:21), (9:2), (9:28). ($1The person
of jen is always jen; jen is a "trait of character": (4:5), (9:2). (g) Nothing
should be done at the expense of jen; jen is central to one's life, essential, all