EDITOR’S NOTE: Our position has attracted increasing attention and is winning increasing understanding and support. Though some people, having been subjected to certain specific social influences, are still suspicious of Chinese legalism, old and new, or have misunderstandings about us, we think this is only natural as another instance of Yin-Yang dichotomy. We are confident that, as time goes on, more and more people will learn from mankind’s new practices as well as from past history how to tell truth from falsity and to recognize true wisdom that will benefit the whole human community. The hope for human salvation lies in the prospect when a considerable number of people have come to recognize the Dao, or the true Way of all things. It is just for a sooner arrival of this day that we New Legalists are working hard. With a view to this purpose, we welcome all friendly criticisms and sincere exchanges of ideas.
THE TEXT
“Legalism debate continues” – this is the title of an article by Mr. Lang Yan posted on the home page of “China Study Group”, a leftist website in English. It obviously is a feedback on the debate between the New Legalists and Prof. Sam Crane of Williams College. Mr. Lang Yan’s criticism of New Legalism basically unfolds in the following two arguments:
a) “Clearly the basis of the New Legalist perspective and politics is itself a strict dichotomy between Chinese thought and Western thought, and this is its greatest weakness.”
b) “The ‘organic social body’ that the New Legalists believe has naturally developed as Chinese civilization has always been cut through with class and other divisions, all the holistic legalist thinking cannot overcome those divides.”“By nationalizing thinking and politics – interpreting thought and politics by their national origins – the New Legalists misread the global nature of our political-economic situation.”“Chinese traditional thought, whether legalist or, more usually, Confucianism, cannot transform capitalism into a classless system and will not deliver Chinese worker from exploitation… they fall into a political idealism.”
In a word, we New Legalists are said to have dichotomized what should not be while failing to do so where we should have. It seems that we are totally wrong. But actually this is a misunderstanding of New Legalism, as we neither fail to see the mutual accommodation and complementarity between Chinese and Western thought nor ignore class divisions in China and the West in the past or at present. Perhaps our critic has not read carefully our arguments in the debate and in other writings. So, please read the following –
I. New Legalists See Oneness in Dichotomies
In Part III of our series “Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane” subtitled “Traditional Chinese Culture: An Organic Whole”, we stated:
“This fundamental mind-matter split extends through all areas and levels of Western thought, causing all the fragmentation in social life and learning. While expedient defining of a temporary boundary for a certain area for observation and study is necessary and productive for a period of time under certain conditions (which explains the outstanding achievements in natural sciences and technology in modern West), to regard as absolute the relative expedient division of existence into “mind” and ”matter” on the metaphysical level and of everything into parts on all the physical levels – to regard all this as absolute would definitely lead to absurdities (which explains all the anomies and crises in present day human cognition and life).
“Now, holistic integration of all learning on the one hand and partial analyses in divided areas on the other are the Yin and Yang aspects of human cognition. Western tradition is strong at the latter while the Chinese at the former. This is where the two cultures can learn from and complement each other to make human culture an organic whole. What is inspiring at this stage of human development is that Western achievements in theoretical physics as represented by quantum mechanics, etc., typically by the concept of “wave-particle duality”, has paved the way for the West and the East to meet on the metaphysical level and then all the way down.”
Is the above quote not enough evidence showing a clear understanding of both the difference between Chinese and Western cultures and the oneness of human culture? Legalists, old and new, share Laozi’s worldview: “From the Dao emerges One. From One emerge Two. From Two emerge Three. From Three emerge all things. All carry the opposites Yin and Yang, approaching harmony through moderation.” (Dao De Jing, Chap. 42) This worldview can be summarized in the briefest classical term as “Taiji Yin-Yang”, or in modern language as “oneness in dichotomies”. “Oneness” implies the holistic approach, which is the absolute precondition, while a dichotomy means the differentiation and integration between Yin and Yang in all things, big or small. Or, the whole concept can also be interpreted as a “dynamically-balanced multi-dimensional whole”, “multi-dimension” here referring to the relative differentiation between different levels and aspects of existence. Our view of Chinese and Western cultures is compatible with the above world outlook and with the reality as well.
By applying the above worldview to social economic management, ancient Chinese Legalists put forward the principles of harmony with nature, balance of interests and storage by the state, with a view to curb the power expansion of monopolistic interest groups, to regulate capital, to assist the disadvantaged, and to weigh and balance economic factors, thus leading social economy through dynamic adjustments from constantly occurring imbalances to relative balances; By applying the same worldview to social political administration, they established the rule of law in line with the Dao, the all-society mutual supervision system and the social merit system with a view to deprive the aristocracy of their hereditary privileges, to punish or reward people as they deserve, thus mobilizing and bringing into full play the initiative and creativeness of all. They did not ignore the so-called class conflicts, but on the contrary, facing squarely up to these conflicts, they adopted a more or less holistic (Taiji Yin-Yang, dynamic-balance) approach in dealing with them, instead of stubbornly aggravating such conflicts in the interests of certain privileged groups by applying a distorted and deceptive world outlook.
All in all, ancient Chinese Legalists managed to break through again and again the interferences, sabotages, or total usurping of power by those special interest groups through their political and/or ideological agents, and bring about many a world-admired golden age in history. History has proved that the Daoist-Legalist worldview most closely approximates the actual reality and can benefit the mankind.
By applying this same worldview to the study of world affairs today, we, present-day Chinese New Legalists, have revealed the lameness and deceptiveness of the “globalization” manipulated by world monopoly financial capital; revealed the truth about how social product value from three sources (i.e., that endowed by Nature and hidden in raw materials, that of collective human wisdom hidden in tools and skills, and that added by individual labor in the broadest sense) – how the product value from all these sources has been exploited by capital, especially by big capital; and revealed the limitation and deceptiveness of Western democracy rooted in capitalistic economic relations. (All the above has carried on, further broadened and deepened Marx’s criticism of the true nature of capitalistic social economic-political relations.) We New Legalists stand for the principle of dynamic balance in handling ecology issues, international relations issues, issues of relationship between different social interest groups, and those of relations between different social realms (economy, politics, culture), issues involving relations between the government and the governed, who at the same time should also act as the ultimate authority of state power, and the relation between satisfaction of reasonable individual wants and restraint of excessive desires through conscientious self-cultivation of moral character by all individuals. All this points to the importance of traditional Chinese wisdom to the solution of current crises confronting the whole mankind.
To help promote mutual understanding, the next part of this article will discuss in some detail the distinction between the monist worldview which sees oneness in dichotomies and the dualist view which sees opposite extremes only –
II. “Two Extremes” do Not Make a Yin-Yang Unity
First of all, every normal human being, except babies and primitive people, is clearly aware of the dichotomy between the subjective and the objective and those in the objective world. But seeing things as pairs of opposites does not mean to view the two in a pair as completely opposed to each other, i.e., to see things in diametric polarities, or to justify philosophical dualism. We New Legalists have pointed out the essential differences between Chinese and Western thinking but do not set them diametrically opposed to each other – we only want to call attention to what is special about the Chinese way of looking at the world, especially what traditional Chinese culture can offer for the benefit of today’s world. For instance, Western democracy, in spite of its merit, has always been manipulated by a privileged few. This is its Achilles’ heel. Meanwhile, the traditional Chinese government form characterized by power-sharing may offer something to help overcome that fatal weakness. Is it not possible to have a kind of democratic politics that is based on power-sharing some time in the future? Why not?
Philosophically, the Chinese Yin-Yang concept is not a kind of “naïve dialectics” as prevalently thought; it is actually a higher form of dialectics, because it is rooted in a monistic and holistic worldview. In contrast, modern Western dialectics has developed as part of a dualistic world outlook, mainly presenting itself as a three-step process of ”thesis → antithesis → synthesis”. Hegel illustrated this process by his well-known analogy of a wheat grain being transformed into a plant and the latter being transformed again into new grains, which are no longer the original grain, nor its antithesis the plant, but a synthesis of both. As a matter of fact, the relation between the grain and the plant is not the same as that between the Yin and the Yang as illustrated in the Taiji Yin-Yang Twin-Fish Icon, i.e., a relation of mutual reliance, infiltration, complementariness and transformation between the two: the grain and the plant can never be synthesized into such an organic whole. Essentially, Hegel’s world originates in the “absolute spirit, or mind” that, after unfolding itself through the several stages of development of the material human world, ends in a return to itself. Therefore, in his eyes, mind and matter never really get unified as a whole. And Marx’s materialistic dialectics has its inadequacy as well, while yielding many a good result in studying socio-economic-political relations, because he was not able to transcend the conventional dualistic mind-matter polarity, either.
The Chinese Yin-Yang dialectics is not the same thing as the above. The Yin and the Yang, while opposed to each other, also depend on each other, and the dynamics of the two tending towards a mutual balance represents the Way of all changes. Just as The Book of Changes says, “The mutually balancing movements of the Yin and the Yang represent the Way of the world. To follow it is to do good; helping it along is in the nature of things.” (The Great Appendix, I-5)
Mr. Pu Pang, a Chinese scholar, interpreted this basic category of Yin-Yang in Chinese philosophy like this: “You can understand it as a unity of the opposites Yin and Yang. But that is not all; you should also be aware that sometimes Yin, and at other times Yang, has the whip hand, i.e., their relation is always in a dynamic state. Still, this is not all; their movements should not be seen as straightforward – they are actually cyclical, or called ‘cyclic changes’, meaning that an end is a new beginning and a beginning starts from an end. But again, this is not all; the “cyclic changes” should be viewed as spiraling upwards. (Eleven Lectures on Chinese Culture, Zhonghua Publishing House, 2008, P. 41.)
Mr. Pang is right in pointing out the “dynamic state” of Yin-Yang unities, but his further elaboration goes astray. Classical Chinese theories, whether on political economy or on medicine, share the same principle: “The way to cope with changes is to guide them towards balance” (Yellow Emperor’s Four Canons, Chap. 1.) That is to say, the Dao, or the Way, lies in the dynamic balance between Yin and Yang. Probably because of the influence of the Western theory of evolution, Mr. Pang sees “cyclic changes spiraling upwards”. But the concept of change as “endless succession of birth and rebirth” (“生生之谓易”, The Great Appendix, I-5) in Chinese philosophy is not a kind of “vector”: It does not have any implication of “progress” as is innate in the linear way of thinking adopted by Western philosophy.
In fact, ancient Chinese philosophers were always opposed to any argument involving dualistic polarity. Han Fei called such arguments “composed of flippant contentions and wordy repetitions”, “absurd and tactless”,“a dilemma involving two extremes as the only alternatives (两末之议)”. (Han Fei Zi, Chap. 40.) What is unthinkable about Western learning is its long-time dualistic thinking centering on the “dilemma involving two extremes” such as idealism vs. materialism in philosophy, market vs. planning in economics, and democracy vs. autocracy/centralism in politics.
In contrast with those one-sided, “absurd” and “flippant contentions”, traditional Chinese scholars often used factual examples or analogies to illustrate the complexity of things. For instance, the book Han Fei Zi cites the following story (Chap. 37):
Duke P`ing of Chin asked Shu Hsiang, saying: "Formerly Duke Huan of Ch`i called nine conferences of the feudal lords and brought All-under-Heaven under one rule. Was that due to the abilities of the ministers or the ability of the ruler?" In reply Shu Hsiang said, "Kuan Chung was skilful in cutting the shape of the dress; Pin Hsü-wu was skilful in sewing the seams of the dress; and Hsi Pêng was skilful in decorating the dress with plaits and bindings. When the dress was ready, the ruler took it and wore it. The dress-making was thus due to the minister’s abilities. What ability did the Ruler have?"
Thereat Musician K`uang lay down the harp and laughed. "Grand Tutor, why are you laughing?" asked the Duke. "Thy servant," replied the Musician K`uang, "is laughing at the reply Shu Hsiang has given to Your Highness. As a rule, who ministers to a ruler is like a cook synthesizing the five tastes and serving the food to the master. If the master refuses to eat it, who dare force him? May thy servant compare the ruler to farming soil and ministers to grass and trees? The soil must be fertile before grass and trees grow big. Similarly, the Hegemony of Duke Huan was due to the ruler’s ability. What abilities did the ministers have?"
Then Han Fei says: The replies of both Shu Hsiang and Musician K`uang were equally eccentric views. Verily, to bring All-under-Heaven under one rule and call nine conferences of the feudal lords was a brilliant achievement. However, it was neither entirely due to the ability of the ruler nor entirely due to the abilities of the ministers. Han Fei went on to prove his argument with historical facts:
Formerly, Kung Chi-ch`i served Yü, Hsi Fu-ch`i served Ts`ao. Both ministers were so wise that their words always hit the truth of affairs and the execution of the counsels could always harvest successful results. Yet why did Yü and Ts`ao go to ruin? It was because they had able ministers but no able rulers. Likewise, Ch`ien Shu served Yü, but Yü went to ruin; then he served Ch`in, which attained Hegemony. Not that Ch`ien Shu was stupid in Yü and wise in Ch`in, but that serving under an able ruler was different from serving under an unable ruler. Therefore, Hsiang’s saying that the success was due to the abilities of the ministers was not true.
Formerly, Duke Huan built two markets inside the palace and two hundred gates of harems between them. Everyday he wore no hat and took drives with women. After he got Kuan Chung, he became the first of the Five Hegemonic Rulers. After he lost Kuan Chung, he got Shu Tiao with the result that following his death worms crawled outdoors while the corpse still lay unburied. If success was not due to the ability of the minister, Duke Huan would not have attained Hegemony because of Kuan Chung. Were it entirely due to the ability of the ruler, he would not have suffered any disturbance because of Shu Tiao.
Formerly, Duke Wên was so much in love with his Ch`i wife that he forgot the necessity to return to his native country. Therefore, Uncle Fan made a forceful remonstration with him and thereby enabled him to go back to the Chin State. Thus, Duke Huan brought All-under-Heaven under one rule because of Kuan Chung while Duke Wên attained Hegemony because of Uncle Fan.
Therefore, Musician K`uang’s saying that the success was due to the ability of the ruler was also not true. On the whole, the Five Hegemonic Rulers could accomplish their achievements and reputations in All-under-Heaven because in every case both ruler and minister had abilities. Hence the saying: "The replies of both Shu Hsiang and Musician K`uang were equally eccentric views."
All that is said above shows that we New Legalists are not philosophical dualists as Mr. Lang Yan hinted (by saying that our perspective is based on “a strict dichotomy”). But on the contrary, our critic has revealed himself as sinking in the mire of dualistic polarity of extremes by repeatedly and falsely alleging that we New Legalists have ignored the reality of past and present societies splitting into classes and obscured class divisions, suggesting that we are trying to obliterate class struggles by calling attention to national-cultural differences. What is hinted at here would have been considered as smacking of “revisionism” decades ago.
Do class struggles exist? Of course. When the social-political-economic structure is excessively out of balance, ruthless class conflicts would definitely break out. And mind you, how did the Communists win the political power in China? It was by sending the landlord class into history museum and turning the wealth usurped by landlords, bureaucrats and compradors into capital for developing national industry, thus laying the foundation for China’s industrialization. But, is not there also room sometimes for co-operation between conflicting classes? If we are always arguing for or oscillating between absolutely uncompromisable class struggle and absolutely unconditional class co-operation through endlessly repeated “negation of negation”, then we would also get stuck in “a dilemma involving two extremes”.
History has proved that one-sided dogmatic emphasis on class struggle would sometimes lead to disastrous consequences, in the same way as unprincipled class co-operation would. Just as Guiguzi (鬼谷子), a classic for the School of Diplomacy, says in Chap. 4, “The sage, on discerning signs of rift, would tackle it with proper measures: either fill up the gap if still manageable, or scrap the whole thing and start all over again if not mendable.”
Mr. Lang Yan asserts, “New Legalist thought cannot create a regulated capitalism that is in harmony with the interests of workers.” The fact of the matter is: We New Legalists never wish to have a new world founded on the privileges of a certain class, be it the propertied capitalist class or that of “propertyless” social bureaucrats. Our goal is to work for the establishment of an organic social body based on a balanced relationship between different social classes.
Unity and Balance – we cherish these vibrant catchwords from classical Chinese philosophy.
|
