Limits of Confucian Rituals for Multiculturalism in Philosophy of Technology

Recent efforts to bring Confucian rituals (li) into philosophy of technology present them as a promising multicultural perspective for addressing ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies. This paper poses a critical question at the heart of that project: are the rituals being introduced genuinely Confucian in the Xunzian sense, and do they truly offer a multicultural alternative or merely a selective appropriation that loses essential features of the original tradition? I argue that current conceptions of Confucian rituals in philosophy of technology systematically underrepresent what Xunzi considered the indispensable core of moral development through li: the role of living moral exemplars, including family members, teachers, and governors. For Xunzi, raw personal inclinations (xing) cannot align with the Dao without the social and collective experience of ritual practice, and that practice is necessarily guided by authoritative figures who embody proper conduct, correct deviations, and enforce the repetition of gestures within hierarchical relationships. Rituals are not self-executing patterns embedded in artifacts or abstract normative frameworks; they are enacted under the directive authority of junzi who actively govern the conduct of others. The prevailing emphasis on artifact design, human-technology relations, and even the as if space of ritual practice has displaced this social ontology of exemplarity and authority. What is presented as a multicultural perspective thus risks becoming an aesthetic, cosmological, or design-oriented gloss on existing Western frameworks rather than a genuine hybrid transformation. A truly Confucian philosophy of technology would need to recover the hierarchical, exemplar-driven dimensions of Xunzian ritual, demanding that the field attend to how moral authority, emulation, and collective guidance shape technology use. Without this recovery, the question remains unanswered: are these rituals really Confucian, or are they a domesticated version tailored for multicultural consumption?