32. Herrmann-Pillath, “Fei Xiaotong’s Comparative Theory of Chinese Culture,” 27.

33. Yan Yunxiang, “The Chinese Path to Individualization,” 500.

34. This attitude harks back to Mencius’s criticism of Chen Zhongzi 陳仲子 (Teng Wen Gong II 滕文公下, 15).

35. See the relation between “uniqueness,” “privacy,” “autonomy,” and “dignity” in the discourse on individualism in traditional China and modern Europe (Munro, “Introduction,” 3–16).

36. “立言但論是非，不論異同。是，則一二人之見不可易也。非，則雖千萬人所同，不隨聲也。豈惟千萬人，雖百千年同迷之局，我輩亦當以先覺覺後覺，不必附和雷同也.” Yan Xizhai Yanxing Lu 顏習齋言行錄, Part Two (Xuewen Pian 學問篇), in Yan Yuan Ji 顏元集, 20: 696, cited in Zhu Yilu, Yan Yuan, Li Gong Pingzhuan, 343. See also Yan Yuan’s quotation in chapter 1 of this volume, 15–16.

37. de Bary and Bloom, Principle and Practicality; Chŏn Hae-jong, Ch’ŏngdae Sirhak gwa Yijohugi Sirhakŭi Bikyosoron, 701–723, and Zhong-Han Guanxi Shi Lunji; Palais, Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions.

38. On-cho Ng (“The Epochal Concept of ‘Early Modernity,’” 37–61) raises the question of whether the revolutionary concept of modernity elaborated in Western Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is fitting only for a Eurocentric period, or whether it can be extensively applied to other areas of the world, including China and Korea. By taking a long-term perspective, it is possible to speak of a multiplicity of modernities, hence accounting for the internal developments of each sociocultural system (on the psychological aspects of the matter, see Kulich and Zhang, “The Multiple Frames of Chinese ‘Values’” 241–278). The issue of “indigenization” has also been intensively discussed by Taiwanese psychologists who argue in favor of a multidimensional approach to modernization (Hwang Kwang-Kuo, “Constructive Realism and Confucian Relationalism).

39. Schwartz, “Some Polarities in Chinese Thought”; Jerome Ch’en, China and the West, 181; and Svarverud, “Individual Self-Discipline and Collective Freedom,” 209.

40. Li Zhi is well aware of the lack of political guarantee in his essay dedicated to Fang Xiaoru, when he contrasts “martyrs” 死難之人材 and “collaborative officials” 輔弼之人材 (Li Zhi, Xu Cangshu, Wenxue Boshi Fanggong 博士方公, 5:87). The passage is mentioned by Ditmanson, “Death in Fidelity,” 134.