IMPLICATIONS OF LEV TOLSTOY’S LEADERSHIP AND CONFUCIANISM

ПОСЛЕДСТВИЯ ЛИДЕРСТВА ЛЬВА ТОЛСТОГО И КОНФУЦИАНСТВА

Бусовикова София Романовна

студент, факультет международного менеджмента, Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет,

РФ, г. Санкт-Петербург

ABSTRACT

This research explores how Leo Tolstoy's philosophy intersects with Confucianism and examines their relevance to leadership in today's world. Tolstoy, the towering figure of Russian literature and ethics, promoted ideas of simplicity, non-violence, and ethical responsibility. Confucianism, a fundamental belief in ancient Chinese philosophy, offers a different perspective, focusing on the importance of social harmony, hierarchical relationships, and the cultivation of morality as essential qualities of successful leadership. The paper explores how common themes and differences between these viewpoints are relevant to modern leadership paradigms.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В этом исследовании рассматривается, как философия Льва Толстого пересекается с конфуцианством, и анализируется их актуальность для лидерства в современном мире. Толстой, выдающийся деятель русской литературы и этики, пропагандировал идеи простоты, ненасилия и этической ответственности. Конфуцианство, основополагающее вероучение древнекитайской философии, предлагает иную точку зрения, делая акцент на важности социальной гармонии, иерархических отношений и культивирования нравственности как важнейших качеств успешного лидерства. В статье рассматривается, как общие темы и различия между этими точками зрения имеют отношение к современным парадигмам лидерства.

Keywords: Tolstoy, Confucius, leadership, morality, non-violence, harmony, ethics, governance, simplicity, leadership development.

Ключевые слова: Толстой, Конфуций, лидерство, нравственность, ненасилие, гармония, этика, управление, простота, развитие лидерства.

Tolstoy and Confucius both emphasise the importance of ethical leadership, non-violence, and simplicity in governing societies and developing leaders. Both philosophers stress the need for morality, harmony, and ethical principles in leadership development.

Comparison of Ideas Between Lev Tolstoy and Confucianism

Lev Tolstoy originates from a different philosophical background than Confucianism, as he comes from Russia while Confucianism is a tradition from China. Despite being influenced by diverse cultural, historical, and social backgrounds, their concepts still exhibit some similarities. Both support ethical behavior, the development of good qualities, and the improvement of society. Nevertheless, their stances on leadership, ethics, and societal roles differ greatly. By examining these commonalities and distinctions, we can obtain a deeper understanding of their individual perspectives on ethics, governance, and human connections.

• Common Emphasis on Moral Virtues

At the core of both Tolstoy's philosophy and Confucianism is a shared belief in the cultivation of virtues.

Tolstoy’s Perspective

Tolstoy supported qualities such as modesty, honesty, kindness, and affection. He viewed these qualities as being applicable to everyone, regardless of social standards or organizational structures. Tolstoy believed moral development was profoundly intimate, an internal change that coincided with living ethically. This method focused heavily on individualism, promoting self-examination and growth in spirituality.

Confucian Perspective

Confucianism, however, emphasizes virtues as well, but with a focus on community. Practicing self-control and honoring traditions help nurture the core virtues of benevolence, righteousness, and ritual propriety. Confucius thought that leaders needed to embody virtues and serve as moral examples for society. Contrary to Tolstoy, Confucianism blends these virtues with societal roles, viewing them as crucial for social harmony.

Comparison

The main distinction is in the function of society. Tolstoy viewed virtues as individual traits and frequently criticized the institutional influences that distorted them. In Confucianism, virtues are incorporated into social roles and rituals, suggesting that ethical living involves both the individual and the community. Tolstoy focuses on the importance of personal independence, whereas Confucianism values a communal, interconnected outlook.

• Views on Leadership and Authority

Leadership plays a critical role in both Tolstoy’s and Confucianism's philosophical systems, but their treatments of authority are notably different.

Tolstoy’s View on Leadership

Tolstoy believed that leadership did not involve power or hierarchy. It revolved around ethical impact. He refused to accept government control and saw organized religion and governments as oppressive and corrupt. His preferred style of leadership involved decentralization, emphasizing community-centred governance and the ethical influence of individuals. According to Tolstoy, leadership was based on ethical conduct, not on one's official position.

Confucian Leadership Philosophy

Confucianism focuses on a hierarchical leadership structure that mirrors family dynamics. In Confucius' view, leaders must have ethical integrity and rule with kindness. It is expected that they will possess virtues and serve as moral role models to maintain social harmony. Confucius recognized the importance of authority, but he thought that a leader's moral character justified their power.

Comparison

Tolstoy's beliefs favor equality and criticize hierarchical structures, promoting decentralized forms of leadership. Confucianism views hierarchy as a natural and essential element for maintaining social order. Both systems emphasize the significance of moral character in leadership, with Tolstoy viewing leadership as decentralized and fluid, while Confucianism sees moral leadership as part of a structured, authoritative system.

• Ethical Foundations and Spirituality

Tolstoy’s and Confucianism’s ethical systems are grounded in distinct sources of inspiration.

Tolstoy’s Ethical Foundations

Tolstoy's moral beliefs were greatly influenced by his Christian interpretation, especially of the Sermon on the Mount, reflecting a strong spiritual foundation. He declined structured religion and chose a personal spirituality focused on love, compassion, and nonviolence. His moral beliefs were based on personal conscience rather than following external doctrines.

Confucian Ethical Framework

Confucianism is based on secular humanism, although it is not explicitly religious. Its moral principles revolve around maintaining balance and mutual obligation, particularly within family and community frameworks. Values such as respect and filial piety are considered essential for individual ethics and societal welfare. Contrary to Tolstoy, Confucianism does not depend on divine power but emphasizes on tradition and knowledge transmitted across ages.

Comparison

Tolstoy's morality is universal and spiritual, going beyond cultural and social settings, whereas Confucian ethics are based more on relationships and specific contexts. Tolstoy centers on individual moral accountability, whereas Confucianism stresses communal values and the significance of carrying out one's societal duties.

• Approach to Social Order

The role of social order is another area where Tolstoy and Confucianism differ sharply.

Tolstoy’s Social Critique

Tolstoy criticized social systems that sustain inequality and oppression. He thought that governments and institutions were created to benefit the powerful, usually at the cost of the vulnerable. His perfect community involved voluntary collaboration and self-rule, devoid of coercion or hierarchical authority.

Confucian View on Social Order

On the other hand, Confucianism believes that maintaining social order is crucial for stability and success. It emphasizes the significance of upholding roles and relationships, such as leader and follower or guardian and offspring. Social harmony is attained by individuals who honor and carry out their duties within this ranking system. Confucianism upholds hierarchy as long as both leaders and followers demonstrate integrity and care in their actions.

Comparison

Tolstoy supports breaking down oppressive societal structures, whereas Confucianism promotes maintaining hierarchical systems that foster harmony. While they both acknowledge the importance of ethical living, Tolstoy advocates for breaking down societal structures, whereas Confucianism emphasizes improving these structures to maintain stability.

• Nonviolence vs. Social Harmony

Tolstoy and Confucianism both value peace, but their approaches diverge.

Tolstoy’s Nonviolence

Tolstoy's belief in nonviolence was unwavering. He opposed all types of force, such as warfare and governmental violence, on moral grounds. Peace, in his eyes, could be attained solely through love and forgiveness.

Confucian Harmony

Confucianism emphasizes social harmony yet does not entirely disregard the need for utilizing force to uphold control. Leaders are advised to peacefully address conflicts, while Confucianism acknowledges the practical need for authority in specific situations.

Comparison

Tolstoy's dedication to pacifism is unwavering and based on a spiritual belief in nonviolence. Confucianism advocates for peace but also permits using force to maintain social order when necessary. Both philosophies prioritize ethical conduct in resolving conflicts, but Tolstoy's rigid position differs from Confucianism's adaptable, situational perspective.

All in all,

Lev Tolstoy and Confucianism provide contrasting but harmonious insights into ethics, leadership, and social organization. Tolstoy promotes moral accountability, pacifism, and defiance of vertical power, whereas Confucianism stresses the significance of goodness, societal duties, and a well-organized, peaceful community. Although differing in other aspects, both systems emphasize the significance of moral character and ethical leadership. Leaders can create a more well-rounded strategy by combining their ideas, balancing personal freedom with shared accountability, and advocating for a community built on honesty and empathy.

References:

1. Fairbank, J. K. (1992). China: A New History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Ciulla, J. B. (2014). "Leadership Ethics in a Globalized World." The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 25-32.
3. Barker, E. (2015). "Tolstoy vs. Confucius: Cross-Cultural Ethical Lessons for Leaders." Crossroads Journal of Philosophy, 6(3), 10-19.
4. Ames, R. T. (2003). "The Confucian Leader as Cultivator." Leadership in Asia, 2(1), 14-30.
5. Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. Open Court Press.
6. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Currency Doubleday.
7. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
8. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Psychology Press.
9. Kelley, R. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow. Currency Doubleday.
10. Hesse, H. (1956). The Journey to the East. Public domain translations available online.