-- A translation from Chinese of Part II-2(4 & 6) of the book:

Where is the Mankind Heading for:

Contests and realignments between ideologies in the new century

Part II-2(4): Macro-Social, Micro-Social, Individual: The three key levels of a human society

Part  II-2(6): Heavenly Justice vs. Human Interest: Ultimate reduction of multiple levels of human relationships

EDITOR’S NOTE: These are exerpts from the author’s book in Chinese on philosophy and social theories published in 2013. The book partially summarizes the results of the author’s decades-long exploration in the realm of ideology and is rich in ideas both old and new at the same time – new expositions in modern terminology of traditional Chinese thought as applied to social issues and ideologies of the world today. Any comment and criticism and any offer to help improve the English translation of the whole book will be welcome and appreciated. For a list of contents of the book with links to other translated parts, please see:

Where is the Mankind Heading for: Contests and realignments between ideologies in the new century: List of content

THE TEXT

II. Human Society: A dynamically-balanced multi-dimensional whole (continued)

II-2. Multi-dimensional and multi-level structure of human society (continued)

II-2(4). Macro-Social, Micro-social, Individual: Three basic levels of a human society

The human society, represented by the “Earth” -- the middle one among the three levels of “Heaven, Earth (Human Society), Human Individuals” (see II-2(3)), is itself a highly complex system. As human relationships are distinguished between the macro- and the micro-social, it is necessary to view the human society first of all as composed of the three basic levels of the macro, the micro and the individual, and especially necessary to emphasize the importance of viewing the macro level as different from the micro in understanding the human society as a whole, because people tend to think about macro-social relationships, being beyond the limit of people’s direct observation, in the same way as they look at micro-social ones.

By macro-social relationships are meant economic and political relations involving rights and interests between macro-social groups such as between different classes, between government officials and the governed, between different ethnic groups, and between nations, whereas micro-social relationships are those purely personal in nature, not in any way related to the above macro ones, such as between family members, relatives and friends, co-workers as individuals, neighbors, and strangers encountering each other by chance. Of the two, the former is of key importance for human beings as a collective whole to understand the society and act accordingly, though an individual’s development of social consciousness starts with the latter. As regards the interaction between the two sets of relationships, if the former ones are harmonious, the latter ones would not be far from the same. That is why in the early years after a change of dynasties in China’s history there used to be a good social order, so good that “people did not bolt their doors at night nor picked up lost articles on the street” and why criminal and civil cases drop sharply during times of peaceful and orderly popular political movements in modern China. But conversely, general smoothness in micro-social relationships of a society, with people being universally polite and courteous to each other, may not be a sure sign of harmony in its internal and external macro relationships, such as in the West before a hidden social crisis gets serious enough to break out.

However, if micro relations keep deteriorating on a universal scale for long, such as seen in rising crime rates in the U.S.A. today, the root cause must be in macro issues. Unfortunately, it is only after numerous human individulas have suffered from personal pains and sacrifices for long that the human community as a whole can improve their understanding and practice a bit regarding necessary adjustments of macro social relationships, that is, that they can look beyond the micro-social direct-observation level and reach the macro-social height for real solutions. The difference between the Chinese Daoist-Legalists on one side and Confucianists, Buddhists and Western thinkers with a Christian background on the other just lies in whether to observe and handle macro-social issues in the same approaches as used in observing and handling micro human relations within the direct-observation limit, or to go beyond that limit.

Confucianists, Buddhists and Christian thinkers share the following conviction in contrast to Daoist-Legalists’ belief: Some absolute transcendental spirit of universal love can bypass the functioning of the whole material timespace, including the whole human society, and it will only take the work of some half-godly half-human individual saints or sages together with a few followers through their words and deeds for this spirit to take root in people’s hearts, blossom into flowers and finally bear fruits of benevolent and harmonious macro- as well as micro-social relationships. This is the philosophical root cause why Confucianist and Buddhist ethical discourse generally touches micro-social relations only and why Western sociology also limits its studies to micro-social issues and excludes from its realm macro-social theories comprehending political economy. To say the least, even if the majority of a society have the benevolent and compassionate spirit at heart while such spirit is not simultaneously embodied in macro-social economic and political relationships, the society on the whole is still not a benevolent one. This is because mechanical piecing together of micro parts does not amount to a macro whole. What is more likely is that, if divorced from necessary material support from social institutions, the virtuous spirit would indefinitely go downhill, that benevolent and compassionate individuals become less and less, and that the human society be unescapably heading for a breakdown just as is happening today.

Classics of the Huang-Lao school Laozi and The Yellow Emperors’ Four Canons clearly indicate that Daoist-Legalists’ did not limit their attention to the realization of harmony per se in micro human relations, i.e., not talk about whether individuals were benevolent and compassionate or not, about moral cultivation and about how to identify sagely persons outside the context of nature-human and macro-social relations, but that they understood and abode by such ethical principles as the dynamic unfolding of the “Heavenly way” on all macro- and micro-social levels, not merely as purely subjective endeavor motivated by good intentions.

Meanwhile, the cultivation of one’s mental character aimed at uplifting one’s moral state and conditioning oneself to the Heavenly way, while dependent on one’s conscious self-motivation (that is why Daoist-Legalists, did not in the least object to but attach importance as well to individual moral training), is even more dependent, for the majority of human beings at least, on the enlightening and edifying impact of the ever-evolving macro natural and social-historical environment (which fact may not be realized by the impacted person). The successful fostering of a noble moral character should be the joint result of the influence from the functioning of the Supreme Way in combination with the person’s willingness to comply with the Way, not merely of inward soul search through contemplation behind closed doors (though necessary).

Therefore, Doaist-Legalists do not think it adequate only to promote the virtuous spirit of benevolence among the people as separate individuals, but necessary to have it translated into and embodied directly in righteous economic and political relations on all macro- as well as micro-social levels. To achieve the latter, institutions that were effectively practiced in ancient China, such as All-Society Merit System, All-People Supervision System, Price-Balancing Granary and other systems for the regulation of capital, and to-be-developed new institutions suited to the conditions of today and oriented towards multi-dimensional dynamic balances on all social levels should be implemented via the rule of law. By doing so, virtuous and capable individuals can automatically be identified and elected, while being properly supervised, by the public to represent and execute the general public will on all different levels, and institutions embodying social justice be carried on so that due rights and interests of all individuals and social groups working on an equal status be guaranteed.

II-2(5). Culture, Politics, Economy: A “love-hate threesome” between legalism, Confucianism and Western liberalism

[See for equivalent passages in the following already translated articles:

  1. “Traditional Chinese Culture:  An Integrated Whole”,

      Section: “LEGALISM, CONFUCIANISM AND WESTERN LIBERALISM: A LOVE-HATE THREESOME”,

    http://www.xinfajia.net/english/6591.html

  2. “Equality in Political discourse vs. Inequality in Economic Relations”,

  III. Falsely Labeled “Private” Economy vs. “Public” Politics,

  IV. Utopian “Freedom” vs. “Jungle Democracy”,

    http://www.xinfajia.net/english/10075.html

  3. “Bring Social Science Back onto the Daoist Path”,

      Part II: Culture Theory,

    http://www.xinfajia.net/english/7278.html

     & http://www.xinfajia.net/english/7279.html ]

II-2(6). Heavenly Justice vs. Human Interest: Ultimate reduction of multiple levels of human relationships

Related to the culture-politics-economy series of levels is the relationship between the Heavenly principle/moral justice and human desire/self interest. In the history of Chinese thought, there appeared such statements as “Uphold the Heavenly principle and extinguish human desires” (“存天理、灭人欲”) and “A noble man knows about righteousness while a base person about profits” (“君子喻于义、小人喻于利), both containing one same antagonism between the Heavenly moral principle of justice and human desire for self-interest, or the so-called “justice-vs.-interest polemic” (“义利之辩”). Between the two extreme levels of the universal “Heaven” and individual humans, however, there actually exist many intermediate levels of human relationships of interest. But because people often neglect the existence of multiple levels, their statements were often reduced to dualistic “arguments for either-or extremes” (“两末之议”, from《韩非子·难势第四十》).

Human interest may be distinguished between individual interests and common interests shared among individuals of a group; and social interest groups may be further distinguished between multiple levels, the lowest being the nuclear family and the topmost “all-under-heaven”. Even individual interest can be differentiated into long- and short-term ones and into the spiritual (freedom from worry, happiness, and sense of fulfilment) and the material (subsistance needs and comfortable living conditions); the former in both pairs, while containing the latter, are considered by many as of a higher level and greater significance to life. If only individual interests do not harm others’, how to handle all these relationships is a matter of personal choice and has little to do with Heavenly justice.

          Of all the levels starting from the individuals, through the family and all different scopes of social groups to all humanity, and to all forms of life living in natural harmony, and ultimately to the whole natural existence, the common interests on an upper level cover the specific interests of all the lower ones under it and, therefore, ranks higher in importance and claims higher priority. As a matter of fact, what is called “Heavely principle” or “moral justice” refers to none other than a dynamically balanced relationship between all the differentiated interests of these levels; and what are called “human desire” and individual or low-level small group “interests” are also part of the general interests of all multiple levels taken as a whole and hence accommodated by Heavenly justice. That is to say, it is wrong either to deny the basic desire and interest of any individual humans (be he/she “noble” or “base”) or to place the interests of individuals and local groups above the common interests of a higher level, including the topmost level of ecological balance. Obviously, those statements pitting the two sides in the pairs of “the Heavenly principle” vs. “human desire”, or of “moral justice” vs. “self-interest”, and of “the noble man” vs. “the base person”, against each other are all “arguments for either-or extremes”, which can hardly hold water. That is just the result of “flat thinking” without awareness of the multiple-level dimension. Therefore it would be more natural to propose to “Follow human inclination and restrain human desire” (“因人情、节人欲”) as Daolist-Legalists do.