Here is a link to my paper “Blind Spots: On the Authority of Scholarly Consensus on the Analects.”
Abbreviated preface:
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, despite scholars’ best efforts a popular scholarly vision can have the effect of suppressing observations that challenge it, leading scholars to avoid thinking about key objects of potential inquiry. Hence it has often happened that scholars en masse leave an object uninvestigated when there is obvious reason to investigate it, overlook it when it is conspicuous, forget it when it has been noticed, and encourage others to do the same.
When we see a community of scholars doing these things, but we wish to have an opinion on the object in question, we must consult the evidence directly.
I try to show that the relevant community of Anglophone scholars is in that condition regarding each of the following three objects that are awkward for the view that the Confucius of the Analects revolves around the family:
1. tì 弟(悌) in the account of the root of the Way at Analects 1.2;
2. Youzi (You Ruo 有若); and
3. the absence of evidence in the Analects that the Confucius of the Analects saw family virtue as the root (and had other associated views).
For each of these objects, I shall try to demonstrate that (a) there is obvious reason to attend to it; (b) it pervasively fails to register—that is, it is widely overlooked, forgotten and denied where it is hard to miss; and (c) some potentially motivating interest is served by overlooking it and encouraging others to do the same.
For each of the three objects, to show that it is widely overlooked and denied where it is hard to miss, I offer many kinds of substantial evidence. Here is just one of many examples for each object:
1. In recent decades, over a hundred scholarly publications have reported that the root proposed in Analects 1.2 is filial piety simply. The omission is not acknowledged, much less defended.
2. In recent decades, over two hundred scholarly publications have attributed to Confucius statements that the Analects attributes to Youzi. Scholars do this without announcing any special use of Confucius’ name, and sometimes even in the context of distinguishing the views of Confucius from those of his disciples.
3. Scholars offer nine Analects passages other than Analects 1.2 as presenting the view that family virtue is the root of the Way. Each passage plainly says no such thing. Each time (or each but one), no argument is offered for the family root reading of the passage.
