When you thought it was for your own good!
Western and oriental notions of loyalty (aka social obligation ) differ little in the inter-personal dimension, but the extended social significance has evolved differently.
Confucius (Gong Fu Tse) placed a high value on social harmony, ie, of one accepting ones place in a social order. This clearly implied that loyalty was a reciprocal agreement between individuals within a society or group. And even further, that the harmony of ones life - deeply felt - arose naturally out of an acceptance of these agreements. The acceptance was real and not pretended for gain. At least, ideally.
Confucian loyalty follows from the commitment to a good stable society.
This is
Taoist are more individualistic. They would see loyalty if you challenged
the folly of a colleague or superior and raise them above their predicaments
by indicating where the cracks lie in their moral foundation. This provides
an integrity of a different order - ie, fallacies are pruned. Do not
accept the unacceptable. The weak links are strengthened!
Indeed, most Eastern cultures contain a strong combination of both
these philosophical traditions, as well as a sense of business.
In the West (where individuals in positions of power and 'responsibility'
extols the virtues of loyalty), there were two conjugate notions which
cloud the issue: love, and respect. These perform apparently
similar roles. Personal relationships are meant to include both love and
respect in direct proportion to the value of the relationship.
The respect was a social obligation, even a sense of agreed distance.
People agreed not to expose or undermine a colleague, actively,
even though they might fall pitifully due to their folly and weakness.
"Benefit of the doubt", and generous support of colleagues was encouraged
in children with the object of establishing life-long habits. This offers
protection without teaching a supplementary judgement about what
is worth protecting and what needs mending.
A love relationship is also one of personal acceptance. Love
is a mythic term, and can be used for (and often is used for)
manipulation and deception. The cheating husband, the compulsive lying leader,
the greedy fast talker, etc, have re-defined love in terms
of their their hidden agendas.
Their synonyms for love - eg, that somehow they are acting in your best
interests, provided you acquiesce control to them - are deeply suggestive.
The reader should reflect on the extent of love gone wrong, and the
susceptibility of the lonely and disaffiliated.
Once, many years ago, someone I knew in a fairly powerful position expressed
to me that he valued "Loyalty" highly. Over the years, it emerged that this
expression meant that "Loyalty" was higher than truth. This kind of defective
reasoning is at the base of every corrupted hierarchy I have known, and in
the strength of every cult (see: Is there a cult in formation? ).
The Confucians were not completely fooling themselves by blind acceptance
of loyalty, filial piety, etc. They included a Mandate of Heaven
which signifies that ones highest loyalty was to heaven (although Confucians
did not have a material or 'religious' concept of heaven) - that if the
person to whom you were loyal was wrong - and that you could tell that
they were wrong your responsibility was to rejecting the wrong.
Too many Western associations are founded on amoral loyalty. When a leader
rants and raves and incites followers to accept his distortions of the truth,
it is very easy for his followers to acquiesce. This is abominable.
To be continued...
Tom Osborn, 1995 I think.