Tsze-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"
The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify names." "So! indeed!" said Tsze-lu. "You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"
The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
"When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
"Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
Analects, Ch. 13
This passage strikes many Westerners, in this degraded and confused age, as a call for clear, unvarnished, precise and non-"evolving" language, especially about law and public policy. It has always struck me that way.
But all over the internet you will read that it's not about that, it's about defining, honoring and observing officials' status, titles and powers according to a fixed hierarchy. That sounds to me like a freshman B-minus term paper answer -- how can 1,000 cribbed exam answers, by undergrads who didn't do the reading, all be wrong? Some people think of Confucius as a crabbed, fussy reactionary prig obsessed with status, titles and ceremony, and therefore, whatever he says must be about that?
I don't think so. Simply reading the entire passage above, instead of taking the three words "rectification of names" and slapping them onto our stereotype of Confucius, should make that interpretation impossible. And while he talks of "a superior man" he clearly describes that superiority as a matter of behavior and wisdom, and a proportionate humility, not birth or status.
But it's good to see an actual Chinese Philosophy professor, who knows the language, take the same view. Manyul Im, a Philosophy Professor at Fairfield University, writes:
Confucius famously says in Analects 13.3 that the first thing to do in conducting state affairs is to “rectify names” — or “correct terms.” Otherwise, he says, “speech will not follow” (yan bu shun 言不順), with the result that “affairs will not be accomplished” (shi bu cheng 事不成), with the result that “rites and music will not flourish,” with the final result that “punishments and rewards will not be appropriate.”
You could ask a lot of questions here as to what this all means. The one I’ll ask is whether this has anything to do with Analects 12.11–as a lot of people seem to think–where Confucius is asked about governing and he says, very tersely, “jun jun, chen chen, fu fu, zi zi” (君君臣臣父父子子). The way most people seem to render this is some version of “A lord should lord, a minister should minister, a father should father, and a son should son,” where the verbal occurrence is usually embellished (plausibly, I think) with “should act like a proper______.” There are a couple of things that bother me about this, however:
- I don’t see how 12.11, so construed, is about “names” or “terms” (ming). It seems ostensibly about lords, ministers, fathers, and sons on the one hand and on the other about roles or actions–not about the terms or titles for such people or such roles (or actions). To be about names or terms, at least one of the instances of each pair, the noun or verb–assuming that is how we should construe the grammar–would have to be a mention as opposed to a use. But, how are we to read 12.11 then?
- Suppose a lord does not act like a proper lord, a minister like a proper minister, and so forth. Why would that threaten to undermine correct or effective speech, as 13.3 states? I could almost see how improper use of the terms–for example, calling someone a lord who is not actually a lord–could undermine correct usage, if the practice caught on or was enforced. But the fact that someone who isin fact, legitimately, a lord isn’t living up to the name or title, doesn’t have an effect on the correct usage of the name or title; correct usage is necessary to make that judgment in the first place. And, if he isn’t legitimately a lord, then his not living up to the title is just to be expected and doesn’t pose a problem. So, 12.11 can’t really be about making sure people live up to their (properly) applied titles if it is to be relevant to 13.3.
From "Rectification of Names (zhengming, 正名)" on Manyul Im’s Chinese Philosophy Blog
I couldn't say it better, or with any authority. But I can add this: In 13 Confucius is talking about what to do first, when reforming a state's government. And he makes a very general statement that language should be "in accordance with the truth of things" so that "affairs" are "carried on to success". He emphasizes how universal and general this effect and necessity is, so why should we interpret it as only being about ministers' titles?