Confucianism and Daoism in terms of history

Compare and contrast Confucianism and Daoism in terms of history, teaching and
belief, and customs and practices. Not at least 3 points of important similarity
between them and at least 3 points of important difference for each about their
uniqueness and difference.
This should present a substantive explanation, not a superficial one — i.e., don’t
just list or report, but describe, elaborate, explain, and illustrate.
Part 2:
For each one, should it really be classified as a religion? If not, why not? If so, why?
What kind of religion is it? Again, don’t just tell, explain and support your answer.

Sample Solution

Confucianism and Daoism in terms of history

The two great indigenous philosophical and religious traditions of China, Daoism and Confucianism, originated about the same time (6th-5th century BCE) in what are now the neighboring eastern Chinese provinces of Henan and Shandong, respectively. Both traditions have permeated Chinese cultures for some 2,500 years. Both are associated with an individual founder, though in the case of Daoism the figure, Laozi (flourished 6th century BCE), is extremely obscure, and some aspects of his traditional biography are almost certainly legendary. Daoism and Confucianism arose as philosophical worldviews and ways of life. Unlike Confucianism, however, Daoism eventually developed into a self-conscious religion, with an organized doctrine, cultic practices, and institutional leadership. While Daoism emphasizes belief in nature and dealing with life in a natural manner, Confucianism is based on human conduct as opposed to religion and belief in God.

and management, however Fielder’s description of how situational factors affect the leadership style required for the situation is extremely useful in understanding the fundamentals of leadership (Pettinger, 2007). Chelladurai in his Multi Dimensional Model of Leadership, expands on much of Fiedler’s theory but in a continuum based approach, in which the leader can adapt their leadership style to fit the situation (Chelladurai and Madella, 2006). Chelladurai’s theory is taken from sports psychology but can be applied to an organisational scenario. It provides a much more empirical categorisation of task structure, clearly differentiating a plethora of situations that require certain leadership styles for success. Chealldurai found three characteristics that affect the leadership style required for a situation, called antecedents, they mainly expand upon Fiedler’s situational factors and leader – member relations and ultimately affect how a leader should behave towards a situation. The first are situational characteristics, the environment in which the leader must perform, the second are leader characteristics, the experience, personal qualities and skills of the leader, and the third are member characteristics, the motivation, skill and experience levels of group members (Chelladurai and Madella, 2006). The situational characteristics and member characteristics have a required behaviour to ensure maximum group performance, they also have a preferred behaviour to ensure the satisfaction of group members, if the leaders actual behaviour matches both the required behaviour and preferred behaviour of the situation the consequence is maximum group performance and satisfaction. However, if the group are not performing and achieving goals or are not satisfied or both, then the leader is able to amend their actual behaviour to improve this. Leaders able to monitor performance and satisfaction, and understand what is required to amend the situation will achieve optimum group performance in Chelladurai’s model.
The one limitation of Chealldurai’s model is that it assumes the leader is in a position of complete positional power over the group, and can implement any leadership style of their choosing without constraints. Positional power is the authority and influence a leader has over a group, if the leader has positional power, they will be able to implement the leadership style they best see fit for the situation. Positional power cannot be measured or quantified, making it highly ambiguous and hard for a leader to understand whether they have it or how then can gain it. It becomes the responsibility of the organisation to have policies in place to provide leaders with some positional power, usually by establishing a clear hierarchal structure. By establishing a hierarchy, the leader is perceived by the group to be able to make dem