Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Filial piety
View on Wikipedia| Filial piety | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scene from Illustrations of the Classic of Filial Piety (detail), depicting a son kneeling before his parents[1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chinese name | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chinese | 孝 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vietnamese name | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vietnamese alphabet | hiếu | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chữ Hán | 孝 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Korean name | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hangul | 효 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hanja | 孝 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Japanese name | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kanji | 孝 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hiragana | こう | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Part of a series on |
| Eastern philosophy |
|---|
|
|
Filial piety is the virtue of exhibiting love and respect for one's parents, elders, and ancestors, particularly within the context of Confucian, Chinese Buddhist, and Daoist ethics.[2] The Confucian Classic of Filial Piety, thought to be written around the late Warring States-Qin-Han period, has historically been the authoritative source on the Confucian tenet of filial piety. The book—a purported dialogue between Confucius and his student Zengzi—is about how to set up a good society using the principle of filial piety. Filial piety is central to Confucian role ethics.
In more general terms, filial piety means to be good to one's parents; to take care of one's parents; to engage in good conduct, not just towards parents but also outside the home so as to bring a good name to one's parents and ancestors; to show love, respect, and support; to display courtesy; to ensure male heirs; to uphold fraternity among brothers; to wisely advise one's parents, including dissuading them from moral unrighteousness; to display sorrow for their sickness and death; and to bury them and carry out sacrifices after their death.[citation needed]
Filial piety is considered a key virtue in Chinese and other East Asian cultures, and it is the main subject of many stories. One of the most famous collections of such stories is The Twenty-four Cases of Filial Piety. These stories depict how children exercised their filial piety customs in the past. While China has always had a diversity of religious beliefs, the custom of filial piety has been common to almost all of them; historian Hugh D.R. Baker calls respect for the family the one element common to almost all Chinese people.[citation needed]
Terminology
[edit]The western term filial piety was originally derived from studies of Western societies, based on Mediterranean cultures.[3] However, filial piety among the ancient Romans, for example, was largely different from the Chinese in its logic and enactment.[4] Filial piety is illustrated by the Chinese character xiao (孝). The character is a combination of the character lao (old) above the character zi (son), that is, an elder being carried by a son.[5] This indicates that the older generation should be supported by the younger generation.[6]
In Korean Confucianism, the character 孝 is pronounced hyo (효). In Vietnamese, the character 孝 is written in the Vietnamese alphabet as hiếu. In Japanese, the term is generally rendered in spoken and written language as 親孝行 (oyakōkō) adding the characters for parent and conduct to the Chinese character to make the word more specific.
In traditional texts
[edit]Definitions
[edit]Confucian teachings about filial piety can be found in numerous texts, including the Four Books, that is the Great Learning (大學), the Doctrine of the Mean (中庸), Analects (論語), and the book Mencius, as well as the works Classic of Filial Piety (孝經) and the Book of Rites (禮記).[8] In the Classic of Filial Piety, Confucius (551–479 BCE) says that "filial piety is the root of virtue and the basis of philosophy"[9] and modern philosopher Fung Yu-lan describes filial piety as "the ideological basis for traditional [Chinese] society".[10]
For Confucius, filial piety is not merely a ritual outside respect to one's parents, but an inward attitude as well.[11] Filial piety consists of several aspects. Filial piety is an awareness of repaying the burden borne by one's parents.[12] As such, filial piety is done to reciprocate the care one's parents have given.[13] However, it is also practiced because of an obligation towards one's ancestors.[14][15]
According to some modern scholars, xiào is the root of rén (仁; "benevolence, humaneness"),[16] but other scholars state that rén, as well as yì (義; "righteousness") and li (禮; "propriety") should be interpreted as the roots of xiào. Rén means favorable behavior to those whom we are close to.[17] Yì refers to respect to those considered worthy of respect, such as parents and superiors. Li is defined as behaving according to social norms and cultural values.[17] Moreover, it is defined in the texts as deference, which is respectful submission, and reverence, meaning deep respect and awe.[11] Filial piety was taught by Confucius as part of a broad ideal of self-cultivation (君子; jūnzǐ) toward being a perfect human being.[18]
Modern philosopher Hu Shih argued that filial piety gained its central role in Confucian ideology only among later Confucianists. He proposed that Confucius originally taught the quality of rén in general, and did not yet emphasize xiào as much. Only later Confucianists such as Tseng Tzu focused on xiào as the single most important Confucianist quality.[10]
Detailed descriptions
[edit]
Confucian ethics does not regard filial piety as a choice, but rather as an unconditional obligation of the child.[19] The relationship between parents and children is the most fundamental of the five cardinal relationships (五倫; wǔlún) described by Confucius in his role ethics.[20] Filial piety, together with fraternal love, underlies this system.[21] It is the fundamental principle of Confucian morality:[22] Filial piety was seen as the basis for an orderly society, together with loyalty of the ministers toward the ruler, and servitude of the wife toward the husband.[23] In short, filial piety is central to Confucian role ethics[24] and is the cardinal virtue that defines, limits, or even overrides all other virtues.[25]
According to the traditional texts, filial piety consists of physical care, love, service, respect, and obedience.[26] Children should attempt not to bring disgrace upon their parents.[27] Confucian texts such as Book of Rites give details on how filial piety should be practiced.[6] Respect is envisioned by detailed manners such as the way children salute their parents, speak to them (words and tone used), or enter and leave the room in which their parents are, as well as seating arrangements and gifts.[28] Care means making sure parents are comfortable in every single way: this involves food, accommodation, clothes, hygiene, and basically to have them "see and hear pleasurable things" (in Confucius' words)[29] and to have them live without worry.[13] But the most important expressions of, and exercises in, filial piety were the burial and mourning rituals to be held in honor of one's parents.[30][16]
Filial piety means to be good to one's parents; to take care of one's parents; to engage in good conduct not just towards parents but also outside the home so as to bring a good name to one's parents and ancestors;[31] to perform the duties of one's job well (preferably the same job as one's parents to fulfill their aspirations);[13] to carry out sacrifices to the ancestors;[32] to not be rebellious;[15] to be polite and well-mannered; to show love, respect, and support; to be near home to serve one's parents;[33] to display courtesy;[29] to ensure male heirs;[13] to uphold fraternity among brothers;[citation needed] to wisely advise one's parents, including dissuading them from moral unrighteousness;[33] to display sorrow for their sickness and death;[34] and to bury them and carry out sacrifices after their death.[35] Furthermore, a filial child should promote the public name of its family, and it should cherish the affection of its parents.[13]
Traditional texts essentially describe filial piety in terms of a son-father relationship, but in practice, it involves all parent-child relationships, as well as relationships with stepparents, grandparents, and ancestors.[36]
Filial piety also involves the role of the parent to the child. The father has a duty to provide for the son, to teach him in traditions of ancestor worship, to find a spouse for him, and to leave a good heritage.[37][36] A father is supposed to be "stern and dignified" to his children, whereas a mother is supposed to be "gentle and compassionate". The parents' virtues are to be practiced, regardless of the child's piety, and vice versa.[36] Nevertheless, filial piety mostly identified the child's duty, and in this, it differed from the Roman concept of patria potestas, which defined mostly the father's authoritative power. Whereas in Roman culture, and later in the Judeo-Christian West, people in authority legitimized their influence by referring to a higher transcending power, in Chinese culture, authority was defined by the roles of the subordinates (son, subject, wife) to their superior (father, emperor, husband) and vice versa. As roles and duties were depersonalized, supremacy became a matter of role and position, rather than person, as it was in the West.[38]
Anthropologist Francis Hsu argued that a child's obedience from a Confucian perspective was regarded as unconditional, but anthropologist David K. Jordan and psychologist David Yau-fai Ho disagree.[36][15] Jordan states that in classical Chinese thought, "remonstrance" was part of filial piety, meaning that a pious child needs to dissuade a parent from performing immoral actions.[36] Ho points out in this regard that the Confucian classics do not advocate "foolish filial piety" (愚孝; yúxiào).[15] However, Jordan adds that if the parent does not listen to the child's dissuasion, the child must still obey the parent,[39] and Ho states that "rebellion or outright defiance" is never approved in Confucian ethics.[15]
Filial piety not only extends to behavior of children toward their parents, but also involves gratitude toward the human body they received from their parents,[22][40] as the body is seen as an extension of one's parents.[33] This involves prohibitions on damaging or hurting the body, and this doctrine has affected how the Confucianists regarded the shaving of the head by Buddhist monks,[22] but also has created a taboo on suicide, regarded as "unfilial behavior" (不孝; bùxiào).[41]
Relation with society at large
[edit]
Filial piety is regarded as a principle that ordered society, without which chaos would prevail.[23] It is described as "an inevitable fact of nature", as opposed to mere convention,[42] and it is seen to follow naturally out of the father-son relationship.[3] In the Chinese tradition of patriarchy, roles are upheld to maintain the harmony of the whole.[43] According to the Neo-Confucian philosopher Cheng Hao (1032–1085 CE), relationships and their corresponding roles "belong to the eternal principle of the cosmos from which there is no escape between heaven and earth".[44]
The idea of filial piety became popular in China because of the many functions it had and many roles it undertook, as the traditional Confucian scholars such as Mencius (4th century BCE) regarded the family as a fundamental unit that formed the root of the nation. Though the virtue of xiào was about respect by children toward their parents, it was meant to regulate how the young generation behaved toward elders in the extended family and in society in general.[45][46] Furthermore, devotion to one's parents was often associated with one's devotion to the state,[note 1] described as the "parallel conception of society"[47] or the "Model of Two".[21] The Classic of Filial Piety states that an obedient and filial son will grow up to become a loyal official (chung)—filial piety was therefore seen as a truth that shaped the citizens of the state,[23] and the loyalty of the minister to his emperor was regarded as the extension of filial piety.[48] Filial piety was regarded as being a dutiful person in general.[44]
Nevertheless, the two were not equated. Mencius teaches that ministers should overthrow an immoral tyrant, should he harm the state; the loyalty to the king was considered conditional, not as unconditional as in filial piety towards one parents.[19]
In East Asian languages and cultures
[edit]Confucian teachings about filial piety have left their mark on East Asian languages and culture. In Chinese, there is a saying that "among hundreds of behaviors, filial piety is the most important one" (百善孝为先; bǎi shàn xiào wéi xiān).[46][9]
In modern Chinese, filial piety is rendered with the words xiào shùn (孝顺), meaning "respect and obedience".[49] While China has always had a diversity of religious beliefs, filial piety has been common to almost all of them; historian Hugh D.R. Baker calls respect for the family the one element common to almost all Chinese people.[50] Historian Ch'ü T'ung-tsu stated about the codification of patriarchy in Chinese law that "[i]t was all a question of filial piety".[51] Filial piety also forms the basis for the veneration of the aged, for which the Chinese are known.[15][10] However, filial piety among the Chinese has led them to be mostly focused on taking care of close kin, and be less interested in wider issues of more distant people:[14][52] nevertheless, this should not be mistaken for individualism.
In Japan, devotion to kinship relations was and still is much more broadly construed, involving more than just kin.[14]
In Korean culture, filial piety is also of crucial importance.[53] However, filial piety in the later Joseon dynasty, created a tension for women on marriage, between "filial values" and "filial emotions" during the later Joseon dynasty, since women, on marrying, owed their filial piety to their husband's family and not to their birth family.[54] These tensions and the normative values of this neo-Confucian patrilineal and patriarchal society are evidenced in pansori and the many versions of various moral tales.[54] Books published on filial piety include Hyohaengrok (효행록) first published in late Goryeo times and revised and republished in 1428,[55] and the Register of Loyalty and Filial Piety (1655-1788) (효행등제등록) a register of those receiving government rewards for filial piety from 1655 to 1788.[56]
In Taiwan, filial piety is considered one of eight important virtues, among which filial piety is considered supreme. It is "central in all thinking about human behavior".[9] Taiwan generally has more traditional values with regard to the parent-child relationship than the People's Republic of China (PRC). This is reflected in attitudes about how desirable it is for the elderly to live independently.[57]
In behavioral sciences
[edit]Social scientists have researched filial piety and related concepts.[58] It is a highly influential factor in studies about Asian families and in intergenerational studies, as well as studies on socialization patterns.[6] Filial piety is defined by several scholars as the recognition by children of the aid and care their parents have given them, and the respect returned by those children.[59] Psychologist K.S. Yang defined it as a "specific, complex syndrome or set of cognition, affects, intentions, and behaviors concerning being good or nice to one's parents".[60] As of 2006[update], psychologists measured filial piety in inconsistent ways, which makes it difficult to progress.[6]
Filial piety is defined by behaviors such as daily maintenance, respect, and sickness care offered to the elderly.[58] Although in scholarly literature five forms of reverence have been described, multi-cultural researcher Kyu-taik Sung added eight more to that, to cover the traditional definitions of elder respect in Confucian texts:[61]
| Care respect | making sure parents are comfortable in every single way |
|---|---|
| Victual respect | taking the parents' preferences into account, e.g. favorite food |
| Gift respect | giving gifts or favors, e.g. presiding meetings |
| Presentational respect | polite and appropriate decorum |
| Linguistic respect | use of honorific language |
| Spatial respect | having elders sit at a place of honor, building graves at respectful places |
| Celebrative respect | celebrating birthdays or other events in honor of elders |
| Public respect | voluntary and public services for elders |
| Acquiescent respect | listening to elders without talking back |
| Consultative respect | consulting elders in personal and family matters |
| Salutatory respect | bowing or saluting elders |
| Precedential respect | allowing elders to have priority in distributing goods and services |
| Funeral respect | mourning and burying elders in a respectful way |
| Ancestor respect | commemorating ancestors and making sacrifices for them |
These forms of respect are based on qualitative research.[62] Some of these forms involve some action or work, whereas other forms are more symbolic. Female elders tend to receive more care respect, whereas male elders tend to receive more symbolic respect.[63]
Apart from attempting to define filial piety, psychologists have also attempted to explain its cognitive development. Psychologist R.M. Lee distinguishes a five-fold development, which he bases on Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development. In the first stage, filial piety is comprehended as just the giving of material things, whereas in the second stage this develops into an understanding that emotional and spiritual support is more important. In the third stage, the child realizes that filial piety is crucial in establishing and keeping parent-child relationships; in the fourth stage, this is expanded to include relationships outside of one's family. In the final stage, filial piety is regarded as a means to realize one's ethical ideals.[64]

Psychologists have found correlations[clarification needed] between filial piety and lower socio-economic status, female gender, elders, minorities, and non-westernized cultures.[citation needed] Traditional filial piety beliefs have been connected with[specify] positive outcomes for the community and society, care for elder family members, positive family relationships, and solidarity. Filial piety has also been related to[specify] an orientation to the past, resistance to cognitive change, superstition and fatalism, dogmatism, authoritarianism, conformism, a belief in the superiority of one's culture, and a lack of active, critical, and creative learning attitudes.[65] Ho connects the value of filial piety with authoritarian moralism and cognitive conservatism in Chinese patterns of socialization, basing this on findings among subjects in Hong Kong and Taiwan. He defines authoritarian moralism as hierarchical authority ranking in family and institutions, and pervasive use of moral precepts as criteria of measuring people. Cognitive moralism he derives from social psychologist Anthony Greenwald, and is a "disposition to preserve existing knowledge structures" and resistance to change. He concludes that filial piety appears to have a negative effect on psychological development, but at the same time, partly explains the high motivation of Chinese people to achieve academic results.[66]
In family counselling research, filial piety has been seen to help establish bonding with parents.[67] Ho argues that filial piety brings along an obligation to raise one's children in a moral way to prevent disgrace to the family.[68] However, filial piety has also been found to perpetuate dysfunctional family patterns such as child abuse: there may be both positive and negative psychological effects.[69] Francis Hsu argued that pro-family attitudes informed by filial piety, when taken on the level of the family at large, can lead to nepotism and corruption, and are at tension with the good of the state as whole.[70]
In Chinese parent-child relations, the aspect of authority goes hand-in-hand with the aspect of benevolence. For example, many Chinese parents support their children's education fully and do not allow their children to work during their studies, which allows them to focus on their studies. Because of this combination of benevolence and authoritarianism in such relations, children feel obliged to respond to parents' expectations, and internalize them.[71] Ho found, however, that in Chinese parent-child relations, fear also contributed to meeting parents' filial expectations: children may not internalize their parents' expectations, but rather perform roles as good children in a detached way, through affect-role dissociation.[72] Studying Korean family relations, scholar Dawnhee Yim argues that internalization of parents' obligations by children may lead to guilt, as well as suppression of hostile thoughts toward parents, leading to psychological problems.[73] Jordan found that despite filial piety being asymmetrical in nature, Chinese interviewees felt that filial piety contained an element of reciprocity: "...it is easy to see the parent whom one serves today as the self who is served tomorrow." Furthermore, the practice of filial piety provides the pious child with a sense of adulthood and moral heroism.[74]
History
[edit]Pre-Confucian history
[edit]The origins of filial piety in East Asia lie in ancestor worship,[16] and can already be found in the pre-Confucian period. Epigraphical findings such as oracle bones contain references to filial piety. Texts such as the Classic of Changes (10th–4th century BCE) may contain early references to the parallel conception of the filial son and the loyal minister.[75]
Early Confucianism
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Confucianism |
|---|

In the Tang dynasty (6th–10th century), not performing filial piety was declared illegal, and even earlier, during the Han dynasty (2nd century BCE–3rd century CE), this was punished by beheading.[27] Behavior regarded as unfilial such as mistreating or abandoning one's parents or grandparents, or refusing to complete the mourning period for them, was punished by exile and beating, or worse.[76]
From the Han dynasty onward, the practice of mourning rites came to be seen as the cornerstone of filial piety and was strictly practiced and enforced. This was a period of unrest, and the state promoted the practice of long-term mourning to reestablish its authority. Filial piety toward one's parents was expected to lead to loyalty to the ruler, expressed in the Han proverb "The Emperor rules all-under-heaven with filial piety".[47] Government officials were expected to take leave for a mourning period of two years after their parents died.[77] Local officials were expected to encourage filial piety to one's parents—and by extension, to the state—by behaving as an example of such piety.[78] The king himself would express filial piety in an exemplary way, through the ritual of "serving the elderly" (yang lao zhi li). Nearly all Han emperors had the word xiào in their temple name.[30][79] The promotion of filial piety in this manner, as part of the idea of li, was a less confrontational way to create order in society than resorting to law.[80]
Filial piety was a keystone of Han morality.[79]
During the early Confucian period, the principles of filial piety were brought back by Japanese and Korean students to their respective homelands, where they became central to the education system. In Japan, rulers gave awards to people deemed to practice exemplary filial conduct.[37]
During the Mongolian rule in the Yuan dynasty (13th–14th century), the practice of filial piety was perceived[by whom?] to deteriorate. In the Ming dynasty (14th–17th century), emperors and literati attempted to revive the customs of filial piety. Though in that process, filial piety was reinterpreted, as rules and rituals were modified.[81] Even on the grassroots level a revival was seen, as vigilante societies started to promote Confucian values. Members of this vigilance movement composed the book The Twenty-four Cases of Filial Piety.[82]
Introduction of Buddhism
[edit]
Filial piety has been an important aspect of Buddhist ethics since early Buddhism,[83] and was essential in the apologetics and texts of Chinese Buddhism.[84] In the Early Buddhist Texts such as the Nikāyas and Āgamas, filial piety is prescribed and practiced in three ways: to repay the gratitude toward one's parents; as a good karma or merit; and as a way to contribute to and sustain the social order.[85] Buddhist scriptures portray the Buddha and his disciples practicing filial piety toward their parents, based on the qualities of gratitude and reciprocity.[86][87]
Initially, scholars of Buddhism like Kenneth Ch'en saw Buddhist teachings on filial piety as a distinct feature of Chinese Buddhism. Later scholarship, led by people such as John Strong and Gregory Schopen, has come to believe that filial piety was part of Buddhist doctrine since early times. Strong and Schopen provided epigraphical and textual evidence to show that early Buddhist laypeople, monks, and nuns often displayed strong devotion to their parents, and concluded that filial piety was already an important part of the devotional life of early Buddhists.[88][89]
When Buddhism was introduced in China, it had no organized celibacy.[90] Confucianism emphasized filial piety to parents and loyalty to the emperor, and Buddhist monastic life was seen to go against its tenets.[91] In the 3rd–5th century CE, as criticism of Buddhism increased, Buddhist monastics and lay authors responded by writing about and translating Buddhist doctrines and narratives that supported filial piety, comparing them to Confucianism and thereby defending Buddhism and its value in society.[92] The Mouzi Lihuolun referred to Confucian and Daoist classics, as well as historical precedents to respond to critics of Buddhism.[93] The Mouzi stated that while on the surface the Buddhist monk seems to reject and abandon his parents, he is actually aiding his parents as well as himself on the path towards enlightenment.[94] Sun Chuo (c. 300–380) further argued that monks were working to ensure the salvation of all people and making their family proud by doing so,[94] and Liu Xie stated that Buddhists practiced filial piety by sharing merit with their departed relatives.[95] Buddhist monks were also criticized for not expressing their respect to the Chinese emperor by prostrating and other devotion, which in Confucianism was associated with the virtue of filial piety. Huiyuan (334–416) responded that although monks did not express such piety, they did pay homage in heart and mind; moreover, their teaching of morality and virtue to the public helped support imperial rule.[96][97]
From the 6th century onward, Chinese Buddhists realized they had to stress Buddhism's own particular ideas about filial piety in order for Buddhism to survive.[98] Śyāma, Sujāti, and other Buddhist stories of self-sacrifice spread a belief that a filial child should even be willing to sacrifice its own body.[99][98] The Ullambana Sūtra introduced the idea of transfer of merit through the story of Mulian Saves His Mother and led to the establishment of the Ghost Festival. By this Buddhists attempted to show that filial piety also meant taking care of one's parents in the next life, not just this life.[100] Furthermore, authors in China—and Tibet, and to some extent Japan—wrote that in Buddhism, all living beings have once been one's parents, and that practicing compassion to all living beings as though they were one's parents is the superior form of filial piety.[101] Another aspect emphasized was the great suffering a mother goes through when giving birth and raising a child. Chinese Buddhists described how difficult it is to repay the goodness of one's mother, and how many sins mothers committed in raising their children.[102] The mother became the primary source of well-being and indebtedness for the son, which was in contrast with pre-Buddhist perspectives emphasizing the father.[103] Nevertheless, although critics of Buddhism did not have much impact during this time, this changed in the period leading up to the Neo-Confucianist revival, when Emperor Wu Zong (841–845) started the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, citing lack of filial piety as one of his reasons for attacking Buddhist institutions.[104]
Filial piety is still an important value in some Asian Buddhist cultures. In China, Buddhism continued to uphold a role in state rituals and mourning rites for ancestors until late imperial times (13th–20th century).[105] Sūtras and narratives about filial piety are still widely used.[97] The Ghost Festival is still popular in many Asian countries, especially those countries which are influenced by both Buddhism and Confucianism.[106]
Late imperial period
[edit]During the 17th century, some missionaries tried to prevent Chinese people from worshiping their ancestors. This was regarded[by whom?] as an assault on Chinese culture.[16]
During the Qing dynasty, however, filial piety was redefined by the Kangxi Emperor, who felt it more important that his officials were loyal to him than that they were filial sons. Civil servants were often not allowed to go on extended leave to perform mourning rituals for their parents. The parallel conception of society therefore disappeared from Chinese society.[107]
Patriarchalism and its enactment in law grew more strict in late imperial China. The duties of the obedient child were much more precisely and rigidly prescribed, to the extent that legal scholar Hsu Dau-lin argued about this period that it "engendered a highly authoritarian spirit which was entirely alien to Confucius himself". The late imperial Chinese held patriarchalism high as an organizing principle of society, as laws and punishments gradually became more strict and severe.[108]
During the same time, in Japan, a classic work about filial practices was compiled, called Biographies of Japanese Filial Children (Japanese pronunciation: Fu San Ko Shi Dan).[37]
19th–20th century
[edit]During the rise of progressivism and communism in China in the early 20th century, Confucian values and family-centered living were discouraged by the state and intellectuals.[20] During the New Culture Movement of 1911, Chinese intellectuals and foreign missionaries attacked the principle of filial piety, the latter considering it an obstruction of progress.[25]
In Japan, filial piety was not regarded as an obstacle to modernization, though scholars disagree about why this was so.[37] Francis Hsu believed that "the human networks through which it found concrete expressions" were different in Japan, and there never was a movement against filial piety as there was in China.[37]
The late imperial trend of increased patriarchalism made it difficult for the Chinese to build strong patrimonial groups that went beyond kin.[109] Though filial piety was practiced much in both China and Japan, the Chinese way was more limited to close kin than in Japan. When industrialization increased, filial piety was therefore criticized more in China than in Japan, because China felt it limited the way the country could meet the challenges from the West.[110] For this reason, China developed a more critical stance towards filial piety and other aspects of Confucianism than other East Asian countries, including not only Japan, but also Taiwan.[111]
In the 1950s, Mao Zedong's socialist measures led to the dissolution of family businesses and more dependence on the state; Taiwan's socialism did not go as far in state control.[112]
Ethnographic evidence from the 19th and early 20th century shows that Chinese people still very much cared for their elders, who very often lived with one or more married sons.[113]
Developments in modern society
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Conservatism in East and Southeast Asia |
|---|
In 21st-century Chinese societies, filial piety expectations and practice have decreased. One cause for this is the rise of the nuclear family without much coresidence with parents. Families are becoming smaller because of family planning and housing shortages. Other causes are individualism, the loss of status of the elderly, emigration of young people to cities, and the independence of young people and women.[114] Amplifying this trend, the number of elderly people has increased quickly.[20]
The relationship between husband and wife came to be more emphasized, and the extended family less so. Kinship ties between the husband and wife's families have become more bilateral and equal.[115] The way respect to elders is expressed is also changing. Communication with elders tends to become more reciprocal and less one-way, and kindness and courtesy is replacing obedience and subservience.[116]
Care-giving
[edit]
In modern Chinese societies, elder care has changed. Studies show a discrepancy between parents' filial expectations and the behaviors of their children.[58] The discrepancy with regard to respect shown by the children makes elderly people especially unhappy.[58][6] Industrialization and urbanization have affected the practice of filial piety, with care being given more in financial than in personal ways.[6] As of 2009[update], care-giving of elderly people by the young had not undergone any revolutionary changes in the PRC, and family obligations still remained strong, "almost automatic".[117] Respect to elders remains a central value for East Asian people.[118]
Comparing data from the 1990s from Taiwan and the PRC, sociologist Martin Whyte concluded that the elderly in Taiwan often received less support from the government, but more assistance from their children, than in China.[119]
Work ethos and business practices
[edit]In PRC business culture, filial piety is decreasing in influence. As of 2003[update], western-style business practices and managerial style were promoted by the Chinese government to modernize the country.[120] However in Japan employees usually regard their employer as a sort of father, to which they feel obliged to express filial devotion.[121]
Relation with law
[edit]In some societies with large Chinese communities, legislation has been introduced to establish or uphold filial piety. In the 2000s, Singapore introduced a law that makes it an offense to refuse to support one's elderly parents; Taiwan took similar punitive measures. Hong Kong, on the other hand, attempted to influence its population by providing incentives for fulfilling their obligations. For example, certain tax allowances are given to citizens who live with their elderly parents.[122]
Some scholars argued that medieval China's reliance on governance by filial piety formed a society that was better able to prevent crime and other misconduct than societies that did so only through legal means.[80]
See also
[edit]- Child abuse in China
- Family as a model for the state – Theory of political philosophy
- Honour thy father and thy mother – One of the Ten Commandments
Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Ebrey, Patricia Buckley. "Paintings with political agendas". A Visual Sourcebook of Chinese Civilization. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2012.
- ^ Kohn 2004, passim.
- ^ a b Hamilton 1990, p. 84.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 78.
- ^ Ikels 2004, pp. 2–3.
- ^ a b c d e f Yee 2006.
- ^ Mann & Cheng 2001, p. 46.
- ^ Sung 2009a, pp. 179, 186–7.
- ^ a b c Jordan 1998, p. 267.
- ^ a b c King & Bond 1985, p. 33.
- ^ a b Sung 2001, p. 15.
- ^ Cong 2004, p. 158.
- ^ a b c d e Kwan 2000, p. 25.
- ^ a b c Hsu 1998, p. 63.
- ^ a b c d e f Ho 1994, p. 350.
- ^ a b c d Hsu, O'Connor & Lee 2009, p. 159.
- ^ a b Kwan 2000, p. 31.
- ^ Hsu, O'Connor & Lee 2009, pp. 158–9.
- ^ a b Fung & Cheng 2010, p. 486.
- ^ a b c Sung 2009a, p. 180.
- ^ a b Oh 1991, p. 48.
- ^ a b c Sung 2009b, p. 355.
- ^ a b c Kutcher 2006, p. 13.
- ^ Chang & Kalmanson 2010, p. 68.
- ^ a b Hsu 1998, p. 61.
- ^ See Kwan (2000, p. 24), Yee (2006) and Sung (2009a, p. 187). Only Kwan mentions love.
- ^ a b Cong 2004, p. 159.
- ^ See Sung (2001, p. 16) and Sung (2009a, p. 187). Only his 2001 article mentions the seats and gifts.
- ^ a b Sung 2001, pp. 15–6.
- ^ a b Kutcher 2006, p. 14.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 17.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 18.
- ^ a b c Kwan 2000, p. 24.
- ^ Sung 2001, pp. 16–7.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, p. 1.
- ^ a b c d e Jordan 1998, p. 269.
- ^ a b c d e Hsu 1998, p. 62.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 92–4.
- ^ Jordan 1998, pp. 270.
- ^ 《孝經》:"'身體髮膚,受之父母,不敢毀傷,孝之始也。'". Xiaojing: "[Confucius said to Zengzi]: 'Your body, including hair and skin, you have received from your father and mother, and you should not dare to harm or destroy it. This is the beginning of xiao.'"
- ^ See Sun, Long & Boore (2007, p. 256). Hamilton (1990, p. 102, note 56) offers this rendering in English.
- ^ Jordan 1998, p. 278.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 93.
- ^ a b Hamilton 1990, p. 95.
- ^ Chow 2009, p. 320.
- ^ a b Wang, Yuen & Slaney 2008, p. 252.
- ^ a b Kutcher 2006, p. 2.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 100, n.2.
- ^ Baker 1979, p. 98.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 92.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 91.
- ^ Yim 1998, p. 165.
- ^ a b JaHyun Kim Haboush (1995). "Filial Emotions and Filial Values: Changing Patterns in The Discourse of Filiality in Late Chosŏn Korea". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 55 (1): 129–177. doi:10.2307/2719422. ISSN 0073-0548. JSTOR 2719422. Wikidata Q124457244.
- ^ "Hyohaengrok" 효행록(孝行錄). Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Retrieved 2024-02-08.
- ^ 효행등제등록(孝行等第謄錄) [Register of Loyalty and Filial Piety (1655 - 1788)]. Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Retrieved 2024-02-08.
- ^ Whyte 2004, p. 123.
- ^ a b c d Fung & Cheng 2010, p. 315.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 14.
- ^ Kwan 2000, p. 23.
- ^ Sung 2001, pp. 17–8.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 19.
- ^ Sung 2001, pp. 22–4.
- ^ Kwan 2000, p. 29.
- ^ For the resistance to change and attitudes of superiority, see Kwan (2000, pp. 27, 34). For the other consequences, see Yee (2006). Ho (1994, p. 361) also describes the link with resistance to change, the learning attitudes, fatalism, dogmatism, authoritarianism and conformism.
- ^ Ho 1994, pp. 351–2, 362.
- ^ Kwan 2000, p. 27.
- ^ Ho 1994, p. 361.
- ^ Kwan 2000, pp. 27, 34–5.
- ^ Jordan 1998, p. 276.
- ^ Kwan 2000, p. 32.
- ^ Kwan 2000, p. 33.
- ^ Yim 1998, pp. 165–6.
- ^ Jordan 1998, p. 274–5.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, p. 12.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, pp. 102–3, n.56.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, pp. 1–2.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, pp. 2, 12.
- ^ a b Chan & Tan 2004, p. 2.
- ^ a b Kutcher 2006, p. 194.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, p. 35.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, p. 45.
- ^ Strong 1983.
- ^ Ch'en 1973.
- ^ Xing 2016, p. 214.
- ^ Xing 2016, p. 220.
- ^ Xing 2012, p. 83.
- ^ Schopen 1997, pp. 57, 62, 65–7.
- ^ Strong 1983, pp. 172–3.
- ^ Zurcher 2007, p. 281.
- ^ Ch'en 1968, p. 82.
- ^ Ch'en 1968, pp. 82–3.
- ^ Xing 2018, p. 10.
- ^ a b Kunio 2004, pp. 115–6.
- ^ Xing 2018, p. 12.
- ^ Ch'en 1968, p. 94.
- ^ a b Xing 2016, p. 224.
- ^ a b Strong 1983, p. 178.
- ^ Knapp 2014, pp. 135–6, 141, 145.
- ^ Wilson 2014, p. 194.
- ^ Li-tian 2010, pp. 41, 46.
- ^ Idema 2009, p. xvii.
- ^ Cole 1994, p. 2.
- ^ Smith 1993, pp. 7, 10–1.
- ^ Smith 1993, pp. 12–3.
- ^ Truitt 2015, p. 292.
- ^ Kutcher 2006, p. 120.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, pp. 87–8, 97.
- ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 97.
- ^ Hsu 1998, p. 67.
- ^ Whyte 2004, pp. 107.
- ^ Whyte 2004, pp. 107–8.
- ^ Whyte 2004, p. 106.
- ^ See Fung & Cheng (2010, p. 315) for the nuclear family, individualism, loss of status, emigration and female independence. See Sung (2009a, p. 180) for the causes of the rise of the nuclear family and the independence of young people.
- ^ Whyte 2004, p. 108.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 21.
- ^ Sung 2009a, pp. 181, 185.
- ^ Sung 2001, p. 22.
- ^ Whyte 2004, pp. 117–8.
- ^ Fu & Tsui 2003, p. 426.
- ^ Oh 1991, p. 50.
- ^ Chow 2009, pp. 319–20.
Bibliography
[edit]- Baker, Hugh D. R. (1979), Chinese Family and Kinship, Columbia University Press
- Chan, Alan Kam-leung; Tan, Sor-hoon (2004), "Introduction", Filial Piety in Chinese Thought and History, Psychology Press, p. 1–11, ISBN 978-0-415-33365-8
- Ch'en, Kenneth (1968), "Filial Piety in Chinese Buddhism", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 28: 81–97, doi:10.2307/2718595, ISSN 0073-0548, JSTOR 2718595
- Chang, Wonsuk; Kalmanson, Leah (8 November 2010), Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asia and Beyond, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-1-4384-3191-8
- Ch'en, K. (1973), The Chinese Transformation of Buddhism, Princeton University Press
- Chow, N. (2009), "Filial Piety in Asian Chinese Communities", in Sung, K.T.; Kim, B.J. (eds.), Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers, University Press of America, pp. 319–24, ISBN 978-0-7618-4530-0
- Cole, R. Alan (1994), Mothers and Sons in Chinese Buddhism, Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-6510-7
- Cong, Y. (2004), "Doctor–family–patient Relationship: The Chinese Paradigm of Informed Consent", The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29 (2): 149–78, doi:10.1076/jmep.29.2.149.31506, PMID 15371185
- Fu, P.P.; Tsui, A.S. (2003), "Utilizing Printed Media to Understand Desired Leadership Attributes in the People's Republic of China", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20 (4): 423–46, doi:10.1023/A:1026373124564, S2CID 150686669
- Fung, H.H.; Cheng, S.T. (2010), "Psychology and Aging in the Land of the Panda", Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Oxford University Press, pp. 309–26, ISBN 978-0-19-954185-0
- Hamilton, G.G. (1990), "Patriarchy, Patrimonialism, and Filial Piety: A Comparison of China and Western Europe", British Journal of Sociology, 41 (1): 77–104, doi:10.2307/591019, JSTOR 591019
- Ho, D. Y. F. (1994), "Filial Piety, Authoritarian Moralism and Cognitive Conservatism in Chinese Societies", Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120 (3): 349–65, hdl:10722/53184, ISSN 8756-7547, PMID 7926697
- Hsu, C.Y.; O'Connor, M.; Lee, S. (22 January 2009), "Understandings of Death and Dying for People of Chinese Origin", Death Studies, 33 (2): 153–174, doi:10.1080/07481180802440431, PMID 19143109, S2CID 1446735
- Hsu, F.L.K. (1998), "Confucianism in Comparative Context", in Slote, Walter H.; Vos, George A. De (eds.), Confucianism and the Family, SUNY Press, pp. 53–74, ISBN 978-0-7914-3736-0
- Hsu, J. (1985), "Family Relations, Problems and Therapy", in Tseng, W.S.; Wu, D.Y.H. (eds.), Chinese Culture and Mental Health, Academic Press, pp. 95–112
- Idema, Wilt L. (2009), Filial Piety and Its Divine Rewards: The Legend of Dong Yong and Weaving Maiden with Related Texts, Hackett Publishing, ISBN 978-1-60384-219-8
- Ikels, C. (2004), Filial piety: Practice and Discourse in Contemporary East Asia, Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-4791-2
- Jordan, D.K. (1998), "Filial Piety in Taiwanese Popular Thought", in Slote, Walter H.; Vos, George A. De (eds.), Confucianism and the Family, SUNY Press, pp. 267–84, ISBN 978-0-7914-3736-0
- King, A.Y.; Bond, M.H. (1985), "The Confucian Paradigm of Man: A Sociological View", in Tseng, W.S.; Wu, D.Y.H. (eds.), Chinese Culture and Mental Health, Academic Press, pp. 2–45
- Knapp, K.N. (2014), "Chinese Filial Cannibalism: A Silk Road Import?", in Wong, D.C.; Heldt, Gusthav (eds.), China and Beyond in the Mediaeval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-regional Connections, Cambria Press, pp. 135–49, archived from the original on 2019-07-12, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Kohn, L. (2004), "Immortal Parents and Universal Kin: Family Values in Medieval Daoism", in Chan, A.K.; Tan, S. (eds.), Filial Piety in Chinese Thought and History, Routledge, pp. 91–109, ISBN 0-203-41388-1
- Kunio, M. (2004), "Filial Piety and "Authentic Parents"", in Chan, A.K.; Tan, S. (eds.), Filial Piety in Chinese Thought and History, Routledge, pp. 111–110, ISBN 0-203-41388-1
- Kutcher, N. (2006), Mourning in Late Imperial China: Filial Piety and the State, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-03018-2
- Kwan, K.L.K. (2000), "Counseling Chinese peoples: Perspectives of Filial Piety" (PDF), Asian Journal of Counseling, 7 (1): 23–41, archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-07-05, retrieved 2018-12-23
- Li-tian, Fang (2010), China's Buddhist Culture, Cengage Learning Asia, ISBN 978-981-4281-42-3
- Mann, S.; Cheng, Y.Y. (2001), Under Confucian Eyes: Writings on Gender in Chinese History, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-22276-2
- Oh, Tai K. (February 1991), "Understanding Managerial Values and Behaviour among the Gang of Four: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong", Journal of Management Development, 10 (2): 46–56, doi:10.1108/02621719110141095
- Schopen, G. (1997), Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-1870-8
- Smith, R.J. (1993), "Buddhism and the "Great Persecution" in China", in Keulman, Kenneth (ed.), Critical Moments in Religious History, pp. 59–76, archived from the original on 2019-06-24, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Strong, John (1983), "Filial Piety And Buddhism: The Indian Antecedents to a "Chinese" Problem" (PDF), in Slater, P.; Wiebe, D. (eds.), Traditions in Contact and Change: Selected Proceedings of the XIVth Congress Of The International Association for the History Of Religions, vol. 3, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-05-06, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Sun, F.K.; Long, A.; Boore, J. (February 2007), "The Attitudes of Casualty Nurses in Taiwan to Patients Who Have Attempted Suicide", Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16 (2): 255–63, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01479.x, PMID 17239060
- Sung, K.T. (2001), "Elder Respect: Exploration of Ideals and Forms in East Asia", Journal of Aging Studies, 15 (1): 13–26, doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(00)00014-1
- Sung, K.T. (2009a), "Chinese Young Adults and Elder Respect Expressions in Modern Times", in Sung, K.T.; Kim, B.J. (eds.), Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers, University Press of America, pp. 179–216, ISBN 978-0-7618-4530-0
- Sung, K.T. (2009b), "Repayment for Parents' Kindness: Buddhist Way", in Sung, K.T.; Kim, B.J. (eds.), Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers, University Press of America, pp. 353–66, ISBN 978-0-7618-4530-0
- Truitt, Allison (2015), "Not a Day but a Vu Lan Season: Celebrating Filial Piety in the Vietnamese Diaspora", Journal of Asian American Studies, 18 (3): 289–311, doi:10.1353/jaas.2015.0025, S2CID 147509428
- Wang, K.T.; Yuen, M.; Slaney, R.B. (31 July 2008), "Perfectionism, Depression, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction", The Counseling Psychologist, 37 (2): 249–74, doi:10.1177/0011000008315975, S2CID 145670225
- Wilson, Liz (June 2014), "Buddhism and Family", Religion Compass, 8 (6): 188–198, doi:10.1111/rec3.12107, S2CID 143311213, archived from the original on 2023-03-26, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Whyte, M.K. (2004), "Filial Obligations in Chinese Families: Paradoxes of Modernization" (PDF), in Ikels, Charlotte (ed.), Filial Piety: Practice and Discourse in Contemporary East Asia, Stanford University Press, pp. 106–27, ISBN 0-8047-4790-3, archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-01-25, retrieved 2019-01-28
- Xing, G. (2012), "Chinese Translation of Buddhist Sūtras Related to Filial Piety as a Response to Confucian Criticism of Buddhists Being Unfilial", in Sharma, Anita (ed.), Buddhism in East Asia: Aspects of History's First Universal Religion Presented in the Modern Context, Vidyanidhi Prakashan, pp. 75–86, ISBN 9789380651408, archived from the original on 2019-07-12, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Xing, G. (2016), "The Teaching and Practice of Filial Piety in Buddhism" (PDF), Journal of Law and Religion, 31 (2): 212–26, ISSN 1076-9005, archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-06, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Xing, G. (March 2018), "Filial Piety in Chinese Buddhism", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.559, ISBN 978-0-19-934037-8, archived from the original on 2019-06-15, retrieved 2019-07-12
- Yee, B.W.K. (2006), "Filial Piety", in Jackson, Y. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology, SAGE Publications, p. 214, ISBN 978-1-4522-6556-8
- Yim, D. (1998), "Psychocultural Features of Ancestor Worship", in Slote, Walter H.; Vos, George A. De (eds.), Confucianism and the Family, SUNY Press, pp. 163–86, ISBN 978-0-7914-3736-0
- Zurcher, E. (2007), The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (3rd ed.), Brill Publishers, ISBN 978-90-04-15604-3
Further reading
[edit]- Berezkin, Rostislav (21 February 2015), "Pictorial Versions of the Mulian Story in East Asia (Tenth–Seventeenth Centuries): On the Connections of Religious Painting and Storytelling", Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 8 (1): 95–120, doi:10.1007/s40647-015-0060-4, S2CID 146215342
- Traylor, K.L. (1988), Chinese Filial Piety, Eastern Press
- Xing, G. (2005), "Filial Piety in Early Buddhism", Journal of Buddhist Ethics (12): 82–106
External links
[edit]
Media related to Filial piety at Wikimedia Commons- Xiàojing: The Classic of Filial Piety
- The Filial Piety Sutra, Buddhist discourse about the kindness of parents and the difficulty in repaying it
Filial piety
View on GrokipediaConceptual Foundations
Definitions and Core Principles
Filial piety, denoted as xiao (孝) in Chinese, represents the cardinal virtue in Confucian ethics, entailing the moral obligation to provide material support, emotional reverence, and ritual observance to one's parents and ancestors throughout their lives and after death.[3] This principle originates from the acknowledgment that the body, hair, and skin are inherited from parents, prohibiting any form of self-harm or neglect as a direct expression of gratitude and respect.[9] In classical texts, xiao is positioned as the foundational element of all virtues, serving as the "root of virtue and the wellspring of instruction," from which broader ethical conduct, including benevolence (ren) and righteousness (yi), derives.[9] Core principles emphasize hierarchical reciprocity and extension: children must prioritize parental needs over personal desires, defer to their judgment, and cultivate achievements that reflect positively on the family lineage, such as attaining scholarly success or official rank to honor parental guidance.[4] Filial duty extends beyond the immediate family to analogous loyalty toward rulers—treating the sovereign with the combined affection due a mother and reverence due a father—thus linking domestic harmony to political stability and cosmic order.[9] This outward projection underscores xiao's role in fostering societal fidelity, where remonstrance against parental wrongdoing is permitted but only through gentle persuasion to avoid discord, prioritizing long-term relational preservation over confrontation.[4] Directly contradicting or publicly challenging seniors is considered disrespectful because it causes loss of face (mianzi); instead, harmony is maintained through indirect communication valued over direct confrontation.[10] Contemporary psychological analyses distinguish reciprocal filial piety, rooted in genuine affection and positive parent-child interactions, from authoritarian variants emphasizing strict obedience and authority compliance, though classical formulations integrate both through the imperative of joyful service and dutiful endurance.[3] Empirical studies confirm these dimensions influence behaviors like elder care and family cohesion, with reciprocal forms correlating to voluntary support and authoritarian to obligation-driven actions.[2]
Terminology and Etymology
The English phrase filial piety serves as the standard translation for the Chinese virtue of xiào (孝), which encompasses duties of respect, obedience, and care toward parents and ancestors as articulated in classical Confucian texts such as the Xiaojing. The term filial originates from the Latin fīliālis, derived from fīlius meaning "son" or "child," while piety stems from pietās, denoting dutiful conduct toward family, deities, and state in Roman tradition, later adapted in Western scholarship to describe analogous Eastern practices.[6] The Chinese character xiào (孝) is a pictophonetic compound, with its upper component lǎo (老), signifying "old" or "aged," superimposed over zǐ (子), meaning "child" or "offspring," evoking the image of a younger generation physically and morally supporting elders.[5] This visual etymology, traceable to oracle bone inscriptions from the Shang dynasty (circa 1600–1046 BCE), underscores the hierarchical reciprocity central to the concept, where filial acts repay parental nurturance and extend to ancestral veneration.[11] In modern Mandarin, xiào is frequently paired with shùn (顺) to form xiàoshùn (孝顺), emphasizing not only reverence but also compliant behavior toward parents, a usage prevalent in everyday discourse and reinforced in cultural texts from the Song dynasty onward.[2] Cognate terms appear in other Sinosphere languages, such as Korean hyo (효), pronounced similarly and sharing the same Hanja character, and Japanese kō (孝), both inheriting the Confucian semantic field while adapting to local phonetic and orthographic systems.[12]Philosophical Underpinnings from First Principles
Filial piety originates from the fundamental causal reality that parents are the direct progenitors and initial nurturers of an individual's existence, imposing a logical obligation of reciprocity and gratitude as a prerequisite for coherent ethical systems. Without parental investment in reproduction and early care—evidenced by the biological necessity of gestation, lactation, and protection for human offspring survival—the individual would not exist to deliberate on duties. This causal debt underpins the virtue, as articulated in classical texts where the body and its capacities are received intact from parents, forming the "first priority" of duty to preserve and honor that origin. Reason dictates that failing to acknowledge this primacy erodes the foundations of personal identity and intergenerational continuity, as the self's very being traces unidirectionally to parental agency.[9] Reciprocity extends this into a principle of balanced exchange, where the asymmetrical sacrifices parents make—time, resources, and risk for the child's development—generate a corresponding adult responsibility to provide support, respect, and deference in return. Ethical theories frame this not as arbitrary convention but as derived from the parent-child bond's inherent structure, akin to friendship or special obligations arising from voluntary benefits conferred, ensuring societal stability through reinforced kin altruism. Empirical patterns in human societies demonstrate that such reciprocity mitigates free-rider problems in family units, promoting long-term cooperation essential for group survival amid demographic pressures like aging populations. Gratitude theory further substantiates this, positing that past parental goods (life, education, security) create enduring moral claims, independent of ongoing utility, as denying repayment would undermine trust in all beneficent relationships.[13][14][15] From a biological perspective, filial piety aligns with kin selection mechanisms, where behaviors favoring close relatives enhance inclusive fitness by propagating shared genes, explaining the cross-cultural prevalence of parental reverence despite cultural variations. Parents' high reproductive cost—particularly maternal investment—selects for offspring dispositions that repay through elder care, averting evolutionary disadvantages like lineage extinction from neglect. This natural imperative, observable in primate analogs and human ethology, grounds the virtue in empirical causality rather than mere ideology, countering modern individualistic erosions that ignore these adaptive roots. Philosophers like Aristotle reinforce this by emphasizing parental priority in conferring existence, warranting child deference even amid imperfections, as the household's natural hierarchy models broader justice.[15][16]Historical Evolution
Ancient and Pre-Confucian Origins
The concept of filial piety, or xiao (孝), traces its roots to ancient Chinese practices of ancestor veneration, which emerged during the Neolithic period with the Yangshao culture (c. 5000–3000 BCE) in the Shaanxi region, where burial rituals included offerings of everyday objects to sustain the deceased in the afterlife, reflecting an early recognition of familial obligations extending beyond death.[17] These practices evolved into formalized ancestor worship by the Shang dynasty (c. 1600–1046 BCE), where royal ancestors were consulted through oracle bone divinations and sacrifices, positioning the living king as intermediary to ensure familial and dynastic continuity.[18] In Shang society, filial piety manifested through ritualized mourning and veneration, as evidenced by the term xiao appearing in bronze inscriptions, often denoting support for aged parents or progenitors, with the character sometimes overlapping in script with terms for elders (lao) or deceased ancestors (kao).[18] A notable example from the Shang era involves King Wu Ding (r. c. 1250–1192 BCE), who observed a three-year mourning period for his father, including bathing the deceased and fasting, practices that underscored xiao as a religious and ethical duty tied to ancestral appeasement and royal legitimacy.[18] Oracle bone inscriptions from this period further illustrate ancestor cults, where divinations sought approval from forebears for state affairs, implying a reciprocal bond where living descendants nourished the souls (hun* and *po) of the dead to avert misfortune.[17] This Shang framework emphasized hierarchical family ties, with children indebted to parents for life, a sentiment reinforced through bronze vessels inscribed for ritual use in ancestral rites.[18] During the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BCE), filial piety advanced beyond Shang ancestor cults into a broader moral principle, integrated with state rituals and codified in bronze inscriptions depicting sons physically supporting elderly fathers, symbolizing sustenance and respect.[19] King Wen of Zhou, as crown prince, exemplified this by dutifully serving his parents, elevating xiao as a cornerstone of ethical governance and social order, distinct from mere ritual but linked to heavenly mandate (tianming).[20] Ancestral temples became fixtures in capitals, with regular offerings and mourning degrees (e.g., varying attire based on kinship proximity) ensuring familial harmony influenced political stability, predating Confucian systematization.[17] These pre-Confucian developments prioritized reciprocal parent-child affection and post-mortem continuity, laying groundwork for later expansions without yet emphasizing universal obedience or state enforcement.[3]Confucian Codification and Expansion
Confucius (551–479 BCE) elevated filial piety, or xiao, as a foundational virtue in his teachings, positing it as the root of benevolence (ren) and the basis for moral conduct extending from family to state. In the Analects, he emphasized that filial devotion to parents models loyalty to rulers and harmony in society, stating that "it is rare for a person who is filially pious to his parents and deferential to his elders to be inclined to transgress against his superiors." This linkage transformed xiao from a familial obligation into a systemic ethical principle supporting hierarchical order.[21] The Classic of Filial Piety (Xiaojing), a concise treatise attributed to a dialogue between Confucius and his disciple Zengzi, systematized these ideas, likely compiled by Confucian scholars during the late Warring States period (475–221 BCE) or early Han dynasty (206 BCE–8 CE). Spanning 18 chapters, the text delineates xiao as encompassing not only personal care for parents but also ritual propriety, remonstrance against parental faults, and its extension to sovereign loyalty, asserting that "filial piety is the root of virtue and the foundation of doctrine." It provided concrete prescriptions for behavior, such as nourishing parents in life and honoring them posthumously through sacrifices, thereby codifying xiao as a prescriptive doctrine.[22][9] Under the Han dynasty, xiaojing gained canonical status, with imperial edicts mandating its recitation across the empire to inculcate moral governance. Emperor Wen (r. 180–157 BCE) and subsequent rulers integrated it into state orthodoxy, viewing xiao as essential for dynastic stability, as evidenced by statutes requiring officials and subjects to intone the text daily. This expansion embedded filial piety in legal and educational systems, influencing civil service examinations and reinforcing Confucian cosmology where familial duties mirrored cosmic and political hierarchies.[23][22]Integration with Buddhism and Other Traditions
Buddhism, introduced to China during the Eastern Han dynasty around 65 CE, initially faced criticism for conflicting with Confucian filial piety, as the monastic vow of celibacy and renunciation was interpreted as neglect of parental duties and failure to continue the family line.[24] Chinese apologists responded by composing indigenous sutras and legends that reframed filial obligations within a Buddhist cosmological framework, portraying enlightenment practices as the ultimate repayment of parents' nurturing debt, which earthly acts alone could never fully discharge.[25] This adaptation, evident from the 3rd century onward, positioned filial piety as a foundational merit-generating activity, aligning it with Mahayana emphases on compassion and karma transfer.[26] A pivotal example is the Ullambana Sutra (translated circa 256 CE by Dharmarakṣa), which recounts the disciple Maudgalyāyana's vision of his deceased mother suffering in the Avīci hell due to her stingy karma; he liberates her through offerings to the monastic community on the fifteenth day of the seventh lunar month, instituting the Ghost Festival (Zhongyuan or Obon in Japan).[27] This narrative, widely disseminated in East Asian Buddhist traditions by the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), transformed filial piety into a ritual act of intercessory salvation, whereby sons generate merit to alleviate parental suffering in samsara, thus harmonizing Buddhist otherworldliness with Confucian ancestor reverence.[25] Empirical evidence from Dunhuang manuscripts (5th–10th centuries) shows such stories proliferating in lay Buddhist texts, facilitating the religion's cultural assimilation despite ongoing elite Confucian critiques.[24] In Daoist traditions, filial piety integrated less systematically, often subordinated to principles of natural spontaneity (ziran) and non-action (wuwei), with texts like the Daodejing (circa 4th century BCE) cautioning that explicit promotion of filial duty signals underlying familial discord rather than inherent harmony.[28] Nonetheless, during the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE) syncretism of the "three teachings" (Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism), Daoist immortality cults incorporated filial motifs, such as elixirs sought to extend parental lifespans, blending Confucian hierarchy with Daoist longevity pursuits in popular practice.[29] Beyond China, in Japan following Buddhism's arrival in 538 CE, filial piety fused with Shinto ancestor worship (via kami rituals) and Zen monastic codes, evident in Edo-period (1603–1868 CE) texts like the Twenty-Four Paragons of Filial Piety adapted into ukiyo-e prints and temple moral education, reinforcing it as a civic virtue under Tokugawa neo-Confucian governance.[30] Similar integrations occurred in Korea and Vietnam, where Buddhist temples hosted Confucian-style ancestor rites, ensuring filial piety's endurance amid doctrinal pluralism.[31] These syntheses empirically sustained social stability, as evidenced by lower recorded familial disputes in syncretic regions compared to purely monastic Buddhist societies like Tibet, per historical administrative records.[32]Imperial Enforcement and Variations
In imperial China, filial piety (xiao) was systematically enforced through legal codes, imperial edicts, and bureaucratic incentives, serving as a foundational principle for social order and political legitimacy. Following the Han dynasty's establishment in 206 BCE, rulers repudiated the harsh Legalism of the Qin era and elevated Confucian virtues, including filial piety, into state policy; the Classic of Filial Piety (Xiaojing) was canonized in the imperial academy curriculum by Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE), mandating its study for officials and linking familial obedience to loyalty toward the emperor.[33] Unfilial acts, such as cursing parents or failing to provide support, were codified as capital offenses under statutes like the Han-era Second Year Law, often resulting in execution or exile to underscore the analogy between parent-child and ruler-subject relations.[34] [35] Legal enforcement persisted across dynasties via comprehensive codes that mitigated or aggravated penalties based on familial context, promoting harmony while deterring discord. The Tang Code of 653 CE, for instance, classified unfilial conduct among the "Ten Abominations"—the most severe crimes—prescribing death for acts like theft from parents or abandonment of elders, yet allowed leniency for intra-family disputes to preserve lineage integrity, reflecting Confucian prioritization of correction over retribution.[36] [37] Rewards complemented punishments; exemplary filial sons received bureaucratic promotions, tax exemptions, or imperial honors, as seen in Han tales like that of Cai Shun, who was elevated for caring for his widowed mother amid war.[38] These mechanisms extended to state rituals, where emperors performed analogous ancestor veneration to model xiao for subjects. Variations emerged in emphasis and application across eras, adapting to philosophical and political shifts while retaining core authoritarian elements. In the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE), Neo-Confucian thinkers like Zhu Xi intensified internal moral cultivation of xiao as self-restraint and ritual propriety, influencing civil service exams to test not just rote knowledge but ethical application, thus embedding it deeper in elite ideology than the more ritual-focused Tang enforcement.[39] By the Qing dynasty (1644–1912 CE), filial piety became explicit state ideology for governance, with laws shielding parental authority to mirror imperial hierarchy; a 1815 case saw a son condemned to death for injuring his father, even as the father's suicide intensified scrutiny, illustrating how the state leveraged family dynamics for low-cost control over populations.[40] This evolution from Han-era legal primacy to Qing political instrumentalization highlighted xiao's flexibility, though empirical records show inconsistent application, with rural leniency contrasting urban rigor due to administrative constraints.[40]19th-20th Century Disruptions and Adaptations
The advent of Western imperialism in the 19th century, exemplified by the Opium Wars (1839–1842 and 1856–1860), introduced disruptive forces to traditional Chinese family structures, as treaty ports fostered urbanization and exposure to individualistic ideals that challenged the hierarchical obligations of filial piety.[3] In Japan, the Meiji Restoration of 1868 accelerated modernization through rapid industrialization and legal reforms, including the 1898 Civil Code that formalized the ie (household) system, adapting filial piety into a state-enforced patrilineal framework while diluting its purely moral basis in favor of national loyalty.[41] These shifts empirically correlated with declining cash remittances and co-residence rates in urbanizing areas, as measured in studies of Chinese cities where higher modernization indices predicted weaker filial behaviors by the early 20th century.[42] The Republican era in China (1912–1949) saw explicit ideological assaults during the New Culture Movement (1915–1921) and May Fourth Incident (1919), where intellectuals like Lu Xun decried filial piety as a feudal shackle inhibiting personal autonomy and scientific progress, leading to widespread advocacy for nuclear families over extended kin networks.[3] In Korea under Japanese colonial rule (1910–1945), Confucian academies promoting filial piety were suppressed, yet the virtue persisted underground as a form of cultural resistance.[43] Post-World War II, the Chinese Communist Party's 1949 revolution further disrupted traditions by enacting the 1950 Marriage Law, which granted children legal rights to divorce abusive parents and prioritized class loyalty over familial bonds, aiming to redirect piety toward the state.[44] The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) represented the nadir of disruptions in mainland China, with Maoist campaigns denouncing filial piety as bourgeois and counter-revolutionary, encouraging youth to report parents for ideological deviations and eroding ancestor veneration through destroyed family altars and collectivized living in communes that separated generations.[3] Despite official repulsion—evident in propaganda framing parental authority as feudal—empirical tolerance persisted, as rural enforcement remained inconsistent and filial practices underground sustained family cohesion amid famine and upheaval.[45] In contrast, Taiwan under Kuomintang rule from 1949 actively preserved and adapted filial piety, embedding it in education and law to differentiate from communist erosion, resulting in sustained high co-residence rates (over 60% for elderly by the 1980s) driven by cultural norms rather than coercion.[46] Adaptations emerged through hybridization with modern institutions: in Japan, post-1947 constitutional reforms abolished the ie system but retained filial expectations in the 1947 Civil Code's provisions for elder support, yielding persistent co-residence (around 50% for those over 65 in the 1970s) amid welfare state growth, though psychological studies note a shift from reciprocal to unidirectional obligations.[41] South Korea's rapid industrialization from the 1960s under Park Chung-hee transformed filial piety into economic remittances, with urban migrants funding parental care despite declining physical proximity, as evidenced by longitudinal surveys showing 70–80% endorsement of the virtue into the 1990s.[47] In China, post-Mao reforms from 1978 revived filial piety pragmatically, with the 1996 Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly mandating children's support, reflecting causal pressures from an aging population (elderly share rising from 4.9% in 1953 to 8.9% by 1990) and one-child policy strains, though urbanization continues to weaken enforcement in practice.[48] These evolutions underscore filial piety's resilience, adapting from moral absolutism to negotiated reciprocity amid empirical declines in traditional metrics like multi-generational households.[8]Cross-Cultural Manifestations
In East Asian Societies
Filial piety, known as xiao in Chinese, oyakoko in Japanese, and hyo in Korean, forms a foundational virtue in East Asian societies, emphasizing children's respect, obedience, and caregiving toward parents and elders as derived from Confucian principles that prioritize familial hierarchy and reciprocity.[3] Introduced via Confucianism from China around the 7th century CE in Japan and integrated into Korean traditions predating full Confucian adoption, it manifests in practices such as co-residence, financial support, and emotional deference, which empirical studies link to intergenerational solidarity amid demographic shifts like aging populations.[49][50] In China, filial piety has historically structured family dynamics since pre-imperial times, evolving into a ritual-ethical norm by the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), where it underpinned moral conduct and state legitimacy through texts like the Classic of Filial Piety.[51] Contemporary surveys indicate persistent adherence, with over 70% of urban adults reporting regular contact and financial aid to parents, though urbanization and the one-child policy (1979–2015) have strained traditional expectations, leading to hybrid models blending state welfare with familial duty.[52] Psychological research identifies dual dimensions—reciprocal (affection-based) and authoritarian (authority-based)—correlating the former with better mental health outcomes for elders, while the latter shows mixed effects amid economic pressures.[3][8] Japanese oyakoko integrates Confucian ideals with indigenous Shinto and Buddhist elements, historically promoting elder care within ie (household) systems until post-World War II legal reforms like the 1947 Constitution diminished patriarchal enforcement.[53] Modern data from national surveys reveal that while only 20–30% of elderly live with adult children due to nuclear family trends, 80% receive instrumental support like housekeeping or medical accompaniment, with filial norms influencing lower institutionalization rates compared to Western counterparts.[54] Studies attribute this to cultural persistence, yet note tensions from workforce participation, prompting policies like long-term care insurance since 2000 to supplement familial roles.[55] In South Korea, hyo predates Confucianism in folklore and shamanistic roots, reinforced during the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910) as a state ideology, manifesting in rituals like ancestral rites (jesa) and elder deference in daily interactions.[50] Empirical analyses show high co-residence rates (around 40% for those over 65 as of 2020) and strong correlations between filial beliefs and reduced elder depression, though rapid industrialization has increased reliance on public pensions and nursing homes, with surveys indicating 60% of youth viewing hyo as essential yet challenged by work-life imbalances.[56] Cross-national comparisons highlight East Asia's higher filial obligation scores, linked to lower divorce rates and stable family structures, but warn of potential drawbacks like suppressed individualism in authoritarian variants.[57][8]Parallels in Western and Abrahamic Traditions
In ancient Roman culture, pietas represented a core virtue encompassing dutiful respect toward gods, patria (fatherland), and family, with particular emphasis on filial obligations to parents, including care in old age and proper burial rites.[58] This duty was codified in legal texts as appropriate conduct between children and parents, often prioritizing parental authority in inheritance and household matters.[59] Roman exemplars, such as Aeneas in Virgil's Aeneid, exemplified pietas through unwavering devotion to paternal legacy and familial continuity, mirroring aspects of Confucian xiao in subordinating personal desires to ancestral and parental honor.[60] Greek philosophy and literature exhibited analogous respect for parental authority, though less ritualized than Roman pietas or Confucian xiao. In Homeric epics like the Iliad, characters such as Hector demonstrate filial reverence by fighting to uphold family honor and paternal expectations, reflecting a cultural norm of deference to elders as foundational to heroic virtue.[61] Plato's Laws discusses piety (eusebeia) as essential for societal stability, implicitly extending to familial duties where disregard for parents undermines moral order, akin to how xiao underpins Confucian harmony.[62] Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, frames friendship and justice within household relations, positing natural obligations of children to reciprocate parental rearing through support and obedience, though tempered by rational equity rather than absolute hierarchy.[63] Across Abrahamic traditions, the imperative to honor parents forms a divine commandment central to ethical frameworks, paralleling xiao's role as a relational cornerstone. In Judaism and Christianity, the Fifth Commandment in Exodus 20:12 explicitly mandates, "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land," positioning parental respect as the bridge between duties to God and society, with promises of longevity and prosperity for compliance.[64] The New Testament reinforces this in Ephesians 6:1-3, urging children to obey parents "in the Lord" as rightful conduct, while Jesus critiques hypocritical neglect of parental care under religious pretexts (Mark 7:9-13). In Islam, the Quran elevates kindness to parents immediately after monotheism, as in Surah Al-Isra 17:23: "Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents," prohibiting even utterances of impatience toward aging parents and emphasizing gratitude for maternal bearing.[65] Surah Luqman 31:14 further specifies reciprocal piety, enjoining care despite parental disbelief, underscoring a causal link between filial duty and divine reward.[66] These parallels highlight a shared recognition of parental investment as warranting deference and support, grounded in causal realism: parental sacrifices enable offspring survival and societal continuity, fostering reciprocal obligations absent unchecked individualism. However, Western and Abrahamic emphases often integrate filial duty within broader theological or civic virtues, allowing greater scope for critique of abusive authority—unlike xiao's more unyielding hierarchy—while empirical outcomes in pre-modern contexts similarly correlated with family cohesion and inheritance stability.[63]Presence in Non-Confucian Global Contexts
Cross-cultural psychological research identifies filial piety—or analogous norms of parental respect, obedience, and caregiving—as a construct with universal motivational underpinnings, extending beyond Confucian-influenced societies to diverse global contexts where it correlates with reduced interpersonal aggression and enhanced family cohesion. A 2024 study across multiple cultural samples found that stronger filial piety beliefs predicted lower aggression levels, attributing this to shared human tendencies toward reciprocity and authority deference rather than culture-specific indoctrination. Similarly, empirical analyses from 2021 highlight its role in mitigating relational chaos, with data from non-Asian participants showing consistent patterns of parental prioritization linked to societal stability.[67][68][69] In Abrahamic traditions, scriptural mandates explicitly enjoin filial duties, framing them as divine imperatives independent of Confucian origins. Christianity's Fifth Commandment in Exodus 20:12 requires honoring parents to extend lifespan, a principle reiterated in the New Testament (Ephesians 6:1-3) as foundational for moral order, with historical theological interpretations emphasizing material support and emotional reverence as causal mechanisms for familial harmony. Islam similarly prioritizes birr al-walidayn (kindness to parents), as detailed in Quran 17:23-24, which prohibits harsh words toward elders and prescribes lowered wings of humility in interaction; a comparative analysis notes this as a reciprocal ethic fostering elder care without hierarchical absolutism seen in some Eastern variants. These injunctions, predating widespread globalization, underscore causal links between parental honor and spiritual accountability across Judeo-Christian and Islamic communities.[70][71][72] Classical Western antiquity exhibited pietas in Rome as a multifaceted virtue incorporating filial obligation, where legal and moral codes, such as the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BCE), imposed inheritance and support duties on children toward parents, enforcing reciprocity through state-sanctioned penalties for neglect. This Roman ideal, distinct from Eastern ritualism, integrated parental devotion with civic loyalty, as evidenced in Ciceronian texts defining pietas as justice toward kin, with empirical historical records showing its enforcement via patria potestas granting fathers authority while obligating offspring reverence. In sub-Saharan African indigenous contexts, communalism intertwines with filial-like norms, where familism—prioritizing extended kin duties—manifests in practices like ubuntu-derived elder consultations and skipped-generation caregiving, with 2021 ethnographic data revealing societal pressures for youth contributions to parental welfare amid economic shifts, yielding outcomes like strengthened intergenerational bonds but potential burdens on autonomy.[59][73][74] Anthropological surveys further document filial parallels in Latin American familismo and Native American tribal elder veneration, where reciprocity norms—tied to survival in pre-industrial settings—persist, as quantified in 2010 cross-group analyses showing comparable obligation scores across Hispanic, African American, and indigenous samples versus European Americans, though with variations in authoritarian versus reciprocal emphases. These global manifestations, supported by longitudinal data, suggest evolutionary roots in kin selection, where parental investment elicits deferred repayment, rather than imposed ideology, though modern individualism erodes enforcement in urbanizing non-Confucian societies.[75][76]Empirical and Scientific Perspectives
Psychological Mechanisms and Behavioral Studies
Filial piety operates through distinct psychological mechanisms, often conceptualized via the dual filial piety model, which differentiates reciprocal filial piety—rooted in affection, mutual respect, and voluntary care arising from positive parent-child interactions—and authoritarian filial piety, characterized by hierarchical obedience and duty-bound compliance to parental authority.[77] Reciprocal filial piety emerges from emotional bonding and secure attachment styles, fostering prosocial orientations via mediators such as gratitude and relationship harmony, whereas authoritarian filial piety aligns with conformity and moral plasticity, prioritizing parental directives over individual autonomy.[78] [79] From an evolutionary perspective, filial piety addresses parent-offspring conflicts by culturally enforcing offspring alignment with parental reproductive interests, such as mate selection and resource allocation, thereby enhancing post-reproductive parental fitness through sustained care and obedience.[79] Empirical cross-cultural data indicate that filial piety promotes cognitive conservatism and reduced deviation in behaviors like school attendance, with East Asian samples showing higher conformity rates compared to Western counterparts (e.g., 27% truancy in Chinese adolescents versus 80% in U.S. samples).[79] Behavioral studies demonstrate that reciprocal filial piety consistently predicts lower aggression across cultures, mediated by enhanced self-control, forgiveness, and reduced moral disengagement, as evidenced in surveys of Chinese and Muslim participants where it negatively correlated with aggressive tendencies via these pathways.[67] Authoritarian filial piety yields mixed effects, increasing aggression in Chinese contexts through diminished self-control but reducing it in Islamic samples via heightened restraint.[67] In caregiving contexts, meta-analyses of 12 studies reveal a negative association between filial piety beliefs and caregiver burden among family members of older adults, with higher piety linked to perceived lower emotional strain.[80] Qualitative interviews with 29 Chinese women with suicidal histories identify filial piety as both a risk and protective factor for suicidal behavior, where inability to fulfill obligations (e.g., due to rigid expectations or abuse) heightens distress and ideation, while successful reciprocity (e.g., supportive parenting) buffers against it by reinforcing purpose through role fulfillment.[81] Longitudinal data on adolescents show reciprocal filial piety positively associating with life satisfaction and altruistic behaviors, mediated by psychological factors like empathy, whereas authoritarian variants correlate with career goal discrepancies and neuroticism in young adults.[78] [77] These patterns hold partially cross-culturally, with reciprocal elements appearing more universal than authoritarian ones.[67]Sociological and Familial Outcomes
Filial piety norms foster greater family cohesion and intergenerational solidarity, particularly in East Asian societies where they promote coresidence and mutual support, reducing reliance on institutional elder care. Quantitative studies indicate that higher adherence to filial piety correlates with increased emotional and financial support from adult children to parents, enhancing parental health outcomes such as improved self-rated health and reduced depressive symptoms among elderly individuals in China.[82] Recent 2025 research studies in China further examined these intergenerational relationships, finding that support from adult children—including emotional, financial, and living arrangements—positively impacts elderly parents' mental health, particularly by reducing geriatric depression symptoms, with synergistic effects among different support types and variations influenced by marketization and age.[83][84] For instance, in rural Chinese contexts, filial piety beliefs mediate family functioning and contribute to adolescent psycho-social competence, with family cohesion acting as a buffer against external stressors.[85] Sociologically, this dynamic supports lower rates of elder isolation, as evidenced by persistent multigenerational households in Confucian-influenced cultures, where filial obligations sustain resource sharing and conflict resolution through hierarchical respect.[57] Within families, filial piety influences dynamics by reinforcing reciprocal exchanges, where children's dutiful behaviors—such as frequent contact and caregiving—yield positive feedback loops in parental well-being and child moral development. Empirical analyses show that reciprocal filial piety (emphasizing affection and voluntary care) negatively associates with mental health issues like depression and aggression in youth, while authoritarian variants may impose burdens but still correlate with reduced deviant behaviors via heightened moral disengagement.[86] [67] In East Asian families, these norms facilitate smoother intergenerational contracts, with adult children providing tangible aid that buffers against economic vulnerabilities for aging parents, though gaps between professed filial attitudes and actual behaviors persist, potentially straining relations.[87] However, filial piety can yield adverse familial outcomes, including elevated caregiver burden and suppressed individual autonomy, particularly under rigid interpretations. Meta-analyses reveal a weak inverse relationship between filial piety and burden among Eastern caregivers, suggesting that obligatory duties may exacerbate stress without fully mitigating emotional exhaustion.[80] In diaspora contexts like Asian American families, the pressure to conform to parental expectations amid individualistic host cultures heightens mental distress, eroding spontaneity and genuine affection in parent-child interactions.[88] Sociologically, this manifests in intergenerational ambivalence, where dutiful compliance coexists with underlying resentment, potentially disrupting family harmony and contributing to phenomena like delayed independence for young adults in high-filial-piety societies.[89] Overall, while empirical evidence underscores benefits in cohesion and support, drawbacks highlight tensions between cultural imperatives and modern psychological needs, with outcomes varying by the balance between reciprocal and authoritarian elements.[3]Quantitative Evidence on Benefits and Drawbacks
Dual filial piety, comprising reciprocal filial piety (RFP, emphasizing mutual affection and voluntary support) and authoritative filial piety (AFP, stressing obedience and duty regardless of reciprocity), has been quantitatively assessed in primarily East Asian samples for its associations with individual and familial outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies involving 11,775 participants across 40 effect sizes reported significant positive correlations between both RFP and AFP with life satisfaction, though effect sizes varied by moderators such as age, publication year, and geographic region, with stronger links in older adults and Eastern contexts.[90] RFP consistently links to mental health benefits, including negative correlations with depressive symptoms (r = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.01], p < 0.05; I² = 89%) and anxiety (r = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, -0.08], p < 0.001; I² = 0%) among adolescents in a systematic review.[86] In familial contexts, RFP correlates strongly with family happiness (r = 0.59, p < 0.001), jointly explaining 43.3% of variance in family happiness (R² = 0.43) in a Vietnamese sample of 1,200 participants, where RFP's standardized coefficient (β = 0.46, p < 0.01) exceeded AFP's (β = 0.33, p < 0.01).[91] Additionally, overall filial piety associates with reduced caregiver burden among adult children (r = -0.23 under fixed effects), particularly in Eastern cultures, based on a meta-analysis of 12 studies.[80] AFP yields more ambiguous results, with non-significant negative correlations to depression (r = -0.022, 95% CI [-0.094, 0.050], p = 0.551; I² = 47%) but a non-significant positive link to anxiety (r = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.20], p = 0.33; I² = 90%) in youth.[86] Drawbacks emerge prominently with heightened filial obligation, which predicts increased depressive symptoms in caregivers across cultures (β = 0.14, 95% CI [0.04, 0.24], p < 0.01; N = 394), though effects weaken or reverse to protective in Eastern performance-based measures (e.g., IRR = 0.92, p < 0.01 for Chinese samples).[92] These patterns suggest RFP fosters resilience and harmony, while excessive AFP or obligation may impose psychological costs, especially under mismatched expectations, with evidence predominantly from collectivist societies limiting cross-cultural inferences.[86][92]| Filial Piety Type | Key Benefits (Effect Sizes) | Key Drawbacks (Effect Sizes) |
|---|---|---|
| Reciprocal (RFP) | ↑ Life satisfaction (significant r > 0); ↓ Depression (r = -0.20); ↓ Anxiety (r = -0.11); ↑ Family happiness (r = 0.59, R² contribution 43.3% with AFP) | Minimal reported; potential over-reliance in non-reciprocal dynamics |
| Authoritative (AFP) | ↑ Life satisfaction (significant r > 0); Weak ↓ Caregiver burden (pooled with RFP: r = -0.23) | ↑ Caregiver depression via obligation (β = 0.14); Non-sig ↑ Anxiety (r = 0.07); Obligation-depression link (mixed cultural attenuation) |
.jpg)
![Illustrations of the Ladies' Classic of Filial Piety (detail), Song dynasty, depicting the section "Serving One's Parents-in-Law"[7]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Illustrations_of_the_Ladies%27_Classic_of_Filial_Piety.jpg)