Turn: Confucianism is uniquely able to reinvent feminist ethics of care that can achieve liberatory feminist futures. Furthermore, incorporating non-western knowledge systems into feminist theory is key.

Second, we need a political theory that does not narrowly focus on defending the negative liberties of the self-reliant individual. This can be done by providing an enduring social mechanism, such as li, to render the self ever more porous and other-regarding so that the self becomes increasingly socially responsive as the self becomes increasingly ritually competent. Li has a moderating and transformative effect on the self, since in performing li, the self must be in tune with others—the subject of one’s reverence—and must be circumspect in each unique situation in an effort to harmonize the myriad things in the world. Unlike the Hobbesian man of nature, a Confucian self sees her existential interdependency, not as a lesser evil she tolerates out of the fear of mutual destruction, but as a strength. This strength is characteristic of human society in which the secured, meaningful, and flourishing life of each individual is made possible only in the midst of the continuous stream of human ecology and is sustained by ritualized mutual obligations that are measured, refined, and responsive to the changing human condition intra and intergenerationally. Li is the ritual knot that binds us all to the past, present, and future. Hence, in Confucianism, dependency care is not seen as oppositional to one’s civic competency or outside the realm of political discourse but instead forms an integral part of civil society. Indeed, in order to foster a shared sense of dependency care, not just in the personal realm but also in the social and political realm, we will have to reconceptualize what constitutes the self, citizenry, and political authority. The liberal model of individual rights and limited government that has carried us this far is no longer conceptually adequate to carry us forward into this ever more interdependent and globalized world where emerging environmental/economic/social/political problems oftentimes crisscross multiple boundaries. The modern state must be more than an empty container for disparate individuals limited only by reactive, punitive laws. In facing the rise of national isolationism and xenophobia, not just in the United States but also across Europe, a shift in our conceptual paradigm of what constitutes a wellfunctioning state and a flourishing citizenry is sorely needed so that complex social/political problems, such as climate change, income inequality, criminal justice reform, and refugee crises, can be addressed and solved. In contrast to the individually inclined Western political theory, where civic obligations and relations are contract-based and considered external to the core concerns of one’s own self-interests, the Confucian utopia of datong epitomizes the ideal society in which all are cared for. This idyllic community represents the highest political aspiration for the Confucian, and its realization, in part, is premised on our willingness to go beyond the narrow concerns of our own selves or our immediate families to also care for others, especially the socially vulnerable, so that the old, the young, the sick, and the disabled are not just left out in the cold without proper care. An inclusive, caring political community is quintessentially, if not uniquely, Confucian. This provides a stark contrast when compared with the Western political theories that hinge largely on rational self-centric concerns. In other words, datong offers a genuine care-based state whose political legitimacy is derived, first and foremost, from its capacities to care for all, especially the socially vulnerable. As Mencius puts it, caring for the socially vulnerable is the political priority of a kingly state9 . This Confucian model, as I see it, is the proper way for us to move forward into an ever more compassionate and inclusive future for humanity. In the end, this inventive Confucian-feminist project is intended to provide women of all colors viable conceptual alternatives to think through their own lives in this increasingly globalized, hybridized world. To draw feminist inspirations solely from Western scholarship, making feminist theorizing synonymous with the West, is an unnecessary self-imposed impoverishment, and -more importantly, it is self-defeating for feminists, since the aim of feminist liberation is to foster a truly inclusive world in which all are accounted for. Just as feminist scholarship is striving to be counted as genuinely philosophical, non-Western traditions are striving to be noted as intellectual equals capable of informing all sorts of contemporary progressive projects, including feminism. Feminist liberation must be transnational in scope, and so must be its theorizing. An inclusive feminist future cannot be built based on a Western monopoly on theoretical space. A non-Western tradition, such as Confucianism, must be seen as capable of providing viable conceptual alternatives for achieving the feminist liberatory end. Hall and Ames’s normalization of the topic of gender in the “regular” study of Confucianism opens up a constructive path for feminists like me to engage Confucianism philosophically and to envision a progressive and inclusive future for humanity that is feminist and Confucian at the same time.