The Chinese social regulatory system of “propriety” -- whether the earlier undifferentiated mechanism of the Western Zhou dynasty covering all areas of social life or the differentiated institutions during and after the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, dealing separately with politics, economy, legal affairs, moral issues, etc., with the term “propriety” more related to ethics and etiquette -- was consistently based on a philosophical understanding of social life that is different from that of the Western tradition. The starting point of this understanding is the following universal hard fact: human beings are always naturally unequal in endowments and, so, the human society naturally and inevitably stratified, while mainstream Western thinkers start their arguments from a theoretical presupposition about equality among men but actually have been turning a blind eye, up until the present, to the actually widely existing inequality due to unregulated competition in the name of freedom or what not. One remarkable characteristic of China’s Western Zhou propriety system was its focus of attention on the vertical stratification of the society, or the formal inequality in its structure, stressing that real equality could be achieved only by recognizing and properly tackling such formal inequality.
None of the things on earth is equal to anything else. Equality can be realized only through overall social adjustments. To impose a presupposition about equality on the unequal state of things would result in disasters. This was what ancient Chinese sages have always emphasized. For instance, Mencius said: Things are all different; this is in their nature. They may differ by two or five times; or ten or a hundred times; or a thousand or tens of thousands of times. If you put them all on a par, you are disrupting the natural order under heaven. (《孟子·滕文公上》)
Guanzi, the hard core of Chinese classic literature on economics, explains the inevitability of inequality in economic status: “If everybody is allotted the same amount of wealth, a shrewd man can make ten times profit out of it while a dull person may not be able to maintain it. If the ruler does not regulate them, the gap in possessions between people would grow by hundreds of times. If one becomes too rich, official rewards would not be able to motivate him to do a good job; if one is too poor, the threat of punishment would not be able to deter him from doing wrong. The reason why laws fail to take effect and people remain unruly is because of the great disparity between the rich and the poor.” (《管子·国蓄第七十三》)
The different approaches to the issue of social equality necessarily find expression in how to explain the origin of the state. Although ancient Chinese shared Thomas Hobbes’s view that human beings had previously went through a “natural state”, a state of “war of everybody against everybody else”, still they had different views about how people managed to come out of that state. Hobbes alleged that it was on the strength of a mutually agreed upon covenant, according to which people handed over part of their rights to one person or to a group of persons comprising a parliament as the earliest public authority, that a state was established.
In contrast, Chinese thinkers found that it was some sagely wise men who had led people out of that primitive state. According to Guan Zi, “In ancient times, there were no distinctions between the ruler and the subjects, and between the higher and the lower in social ranks; and neither were there pair marriages. People lived in groups like beasts and fought with each other with violent force. The smarter ones cheated the duller ones; the stronger bullied the weaker; the old, the young and the solitary ones were deserted. Then some wise men mobilized people to stop violence and the violent ones were curbed. They promoted what was beneficial and abolished what was harmful to people and rectify their morals, and people took them as their teachers. Therefore, social management expertise and virtue originated with sages. When the principle underlying such expertise and virtue took root in people’s hearts, they got started on the right track. When the distinctions between the names and the named (名物) and that between the right and the wrong became clear, rewards and punishments began to work. When the stratified social order was formed and people’s livelihood assured, the state capital shaped up.”(《管子·君臣下》)
Historically, the different ways of explaining the origin of the state have determined the different orientations of political development in the East and the West: The Chinese thought highly of the role of sagely persons in the society, in which all people are not on a par, while Western scholars have been insisting on equality among all people as the basis for making contracts.
How comes this difference? This author attributes it to the difference in the pattern of thinking between Easterners and Westerners. Professor Zun Wu (吾淳), a contemporary Chinese scholar, on comparing between ancient Chinese and ancient Greeks in their mode of thinking, concludes: “As compared with ancient Greek thought, ancient Chinese thinking exhibited its interest in the unfolding of phenomena, or a certain concreteness. This is not saying that ancient Chinese were not interested in general and abstract issues, but only saying that, when they were thinking about general and abstract things, they did not totally disregard but took into account at the same time the concrete aspects of things as well. This was where they were different from ancient Greeks, who were keen on pondering over totally abstract essences of things.” (吾淳：《中国思维形态》，上海人民出版社，1998年，第373页。)
It can properly be said that due attention to outward appearances of things was the general background, in terms of thinking tradition, for the shared view among all major schools of thought regarding the stratification of the society based on the propriety system, as all the schools of thought had originated from Western Zhou official learning. Here are some of the representative statements:
“Propriety is what determines the closeness or distance in relationships, clarifies ambiguities, distinguishes between different types of relations, and tells what is right from what is wrong.” （夫礼者所以定亲疏，决嫌疑，别同异，明是非也。《礼记·曲礼上第一》）
“Man is different from animals because he can distinguish things. The most important distinction is between human relationships. What is most important about human relationships is propriety.” （故人道莫不有辨。辨莫大于分，分莫大于礼。《荀子·非相第五》）
“'Propriety' refers to the mode in which one’s feelings are expressed. It is concerned with the cultural embellishments of all righteous acts, such as the mutual relations of ruler and minister, father and son. It is the way whereby high and low, worthy and unworthy, are differentiated.” （礼者，所以貌情也，群义之文章也，君臣父子之交也，贵贱贤不肖之所以别也。 《韩非子·解老第二十》, Trans. W. K. Liao.）
“Righteous relationship between the superior and the inferior, distinction between the noble and the humble, formalities between the old and the young, and limit in the gap between the rich and the poor – the relations between the two parties of each pair constitute the major framework of the propriety system. Without righteousness between the superior and the inferior, there will be unruliness; without distinction between the noble and the humble, there will be contention; without formalities between the old and the young, there will be disobedience; without limit in the gap between the rich and the poor, there will be disharmony. It is never heard that, when there are unruliness, contention, disobedience and disharmony, a state can still remain in good order.” (上、下有义，贵，贱有分，长、幼有等，贫、富有度。凡此八者，礼之经也。故上下无义则乱，贵贱无分则争，长幼无等则倍，贫富无度则失。上下乱，贵贱争，长幼倍，贫富失，而国不乱者，未之尝闻也。《管子·五辅第十》)
“Propriety is what follows the Heaven and the Earth, embodies the Yin and the Yang, distinguishes between the host and the guest, ranks the superior and the inferior, the noble and the humble, the senior and the junior, and differentiates the foreign from the native, the distant from the close, and the new from the old.” (礼者，继天地、体阴阳，而慎主客、序尊卑、贵贱、大小之位，而差外内、远近、新故之级者也。《春秋繁露·奉本第三十四》)
On the functioning level, ancient sages primarily divided the society into administrative brainworkers (君子) and productive physical laborers (小人). The former, referring to the scholar-bureaucrats who administered state affairs, were again roughly divided into ruler and ministers. The pre-Qin advocates of “propriety” held that banquet etiquettes were intended to manifest the righteous relationship between the ruler and his ministers. The order of seats and of toasting and the different number of courses for different people were all meant to indicate the social ranking order and marked the vertical stratification of the society. According to the banquet etiquettes, the ruler and his ministers should respectfully salute to each other. This had a profound political connotation, which implied that they, being mutually dependent, were in a harmonious relationship. (《礼记·燕义第四十七》)
Just as the ruler and his ministers were mutually dependent, so were the administrative brainworkers and productive physical laborers.
In the eyes of our ancient sages, the administrative brainworkers and productive physical laborers were not at all opposed to each other as oppressors and the oppressed but parallel to each other as a result of the vertical division of work. This view can be found in classical literature. For instances:
“Brainworkers are employed in administrative work while physical laborers in production.” (君子务治，小人务力。《国语·鲁语上》)
“In times of good order, administrators bring their capabilities to full play while being gracious to their inferiors, and physical laborers work hard at farming to support their superiors; Therefore, proper relations are maintained between superiors and inferiors, showing no maliciousness or resentment; That is because nobody contends – this is virtue. But in times of disorder, administrators boast of their merits to lord it over their inferiors while laborers flaunt their skills to challenge their administrators; Therefore, there were no proper relations between superiors and inferiors, triggering unrest and brutality; That is because people pretend to be self-righteous – this is moral degeneration and is usually how a state comes to ruin.”(君子尚能而让其下，小人农力以事其上，是以上下有礼。而谗慝黜远，由不争也，谓之懿德。及其乱也，君子称其功以加小人，小人伐其技以冯君子，是以上下无礼，乱虐并生，由争善也，谓之昏德。国家之敝，恒必由之。《左传·襄公十三年》)
Later, Mencius summarized this into “Mental workers administer others and menial laborers are administered by others. Those who are administered feed others and those who administer are fed by others. This is the general situation under heaven.” (劳心者治人，劳力者治于人。治于人者食人，治人者食于人，天下之通义也。《孟子·滕文公上》)
But this summary has often been quoted by many scholars since modern times to prove that traditional Chinese society was an unequal one. As a matter of fact, such vertical stratification facilitated the realization of social harmony and justice. In classical Chinese political theories, this was generalized as “equality through inequality”, meaning to bring about equality through apparently unequal treatment of people with unequal qualities.
“Equality through Inequality” and “Universal Justice”
Over two thousand years ago, Xunzi pointed out clearly the hard fact justifying the principle of “equality through inequality”, that is, the tension between limited supply of natural resources and unlimited desires of human beings,
This author thinks that the reason why Westerners could afford to ignore ecological constraints was because their maritime civilization grew in a much more expansive space for them to grab resources from: By plundering manpower from outer areas, they maintained institutional slavery; by plundering natural resources belonging to other peoples, they developed a persistent tendency towards aggression and expansion. Not until the 20th century, especially since the two world wars, with the dwindling of spaces for plundering human and natural resources from, did the Westerners begin to reflect on the general basis of their civilization. In contrast, the growth of the Chinese civilization was another story: it was confined to the East Asian mainland by high mountains and vast deserts and grasslands and, with the limitedness of natural resources, it was compelled to develop a civilization pattern that could stay in harmony with its ecological environment, that is, to distribute resources via a social stratification system, not by means of fighting or plundering.
Here are some quotations from Xunzi to illustrate his points:
“If all are equal in position, no one can command anyone else; if all are equal in power, nobody can unify all into one community; if all are equals, no one can give assignments to others. Ever since the separation between Heaven and Earth, there have been distinctions between superiors and inferiors; when a wise king was on the throne, he governed the state in a ranking order. Two persons in equally high positions cannot wait upon one another; two persons in equally low positions cannot order each other about – this is determined by nature. If people are all on an equal footing and have the same likes and dislikes, then they would inevitably fight each other for lack of enough resources, which would lead to social chaos and ruin. Ancient sage-kings hated this chaos and, so, instituted rules of propriety to place them in different ranks distinguishing the poor and the rich and the noble and the humble so that all can be properly governed. This is the fundamental principle for maintaining peace under heaven, i.e., as the Classic of History puts it, ‘to maintain equality via unequal treatment.’ ” (分均则不偏，势齐则不壹，众齐则不使。有天有地而上下有差，明王始立而处国有制。夫两贵之不能相事，两贱之不能相使，是天数也。势位齐，而欲恶同，物不能澹，则必争；争则必乱，乱则穷矣。先王恶其乱也，故制礼义以分之，使有贫、富、贵、贱之等，足以相兼临者，是养天下之本也。《书》曰：“维齐非齐。”此之谓也。《荀子·王制第九》)
“To be as honorable as the Son of Heaven and as rich as owning all the wealth under heaven is wished for by all people; but this wish cannot be indulged because it is not tolerated by circumstances nor satisfiable for lack of enough resources. Therefore, ancient sage-kings instituted rules of propriety to distinguish the noble and the humble, the senior and the junior, the intelligent and the dull, and the capable and the not capable so as to match their duties with their qualifications and match their rewards with their rank and accomplishment – this is the way to maintain harmony in social life.” (夫贵为天子，富有天下，是人情之所同欲也；然则从人之欲，则势不能容，物不能赡也。故先王案为之制礼义以分之，使有贵贱之等，长幼之差，知愚、能不能之分，皆使人载其事而各得其宜，然后使穀禄多少厚薄之称，是夫群居和一之道也。《荀子·荣辱第四》)
“Therefore, if a noble-minded sage is on the throne, farmers would apply all their strength to farming; merchants all their shrewdness to trading; craftsmen all their skills to making all kinds of wares; and all officials from scholar-bureaucrats up through Marquises and Dukes their benevolence and wisdom to their duties – this is called the best social order. Under such circumstances, who owns everything under heaven does not flatter himself as the richest while those who make a living as city gatekeepers, or bellhops, or toll-gate guards, or night men do not have a feeling of inadequacy. Hence the saying ‘In disparity lies equality; in flexibility, smoothness; in diversity, uniformity.’ This is the way human relations go.” (故仁人在上，则农以力尽田，贾以察尽财，百工以巧尽械器，士大夫以上至于公侯莫不以仁厚知能尽官职，夫是之谓至平。故或禄天下，而不自以为多；或监门、御旅、抱关、击柝，而不自以为寡。故曰：斩而齐，枉而顺，不同而一。夫是之谓人伦。《荀子·荣辱第四》)
“How did the rules of propriety come about? Here is the answer: Human beings are born with desires; When desires are not gratified, they would strive for satisfaction; If there is no boundary set, there would be conflicts, which would lead to chaos, and then ruin. Ancient sage-kings hated this chaos and, so, instituted rules of propriety to differentiate between people so as to have their desires adapted to their statuses and their proper desires satisfied, lest their desires not be satisfied for shortage of resources nor resources exhausted by indulgence of their desires, or in a word, to have both adapted to each other -- this was how rules of propriety came about.” (礼起于何也？曰：人生而有欲；欲而不得，则不能无求；求而无度量分界，则不能不争；争则乱，乱则穷。先王恶其乱也，故制礼义以分之，以养人之欲、给人之求，使欲必不穷乎物，物必不屈于欲，两者相持而长，是礼之所起也。《荀子· 礼论第十九 》)
Thus, Xunzi deduced from the way of nature the conclusion about the tension between limited resources and unlimited human desires, and from the natural differences between human beings the conclusion about the necessity of social stratification and of rules of propriety as the foundation for a good social order and a long-lasting civilization. Here we see the key for solving the conflicts between man and nature and man and man, that is, the propriety system.
Ancient Chinese rank of nobility was called Jue (爵), which was closely related to the distribution of resources, of which the most important was land in an agrarian society. “One’s clothing was made to match his rank and one’s expenses regulated to match his official emolument.” (度爵而制服，量禄而用财。 《管子·立政第四》) In Western Zhou, “The nobility hierarchy and emolument system framed by the kings consisted of five ranks: the duke; the marquis; the earl; the count; and the baron…The son of Heaven was allotted 1000 sq. li; a duke or marquis 500 sq. li; a count or baron 50 sq. li…” (王者之制禄爵，公侯伯子男，凡五等… 天子之田方千里，公侯田方百里，伯七十里，子、男五十里…《礼记·王制》)
Later on, during Qin and Han dynasties, the formerly Western Zhou feudal system based on hereditary succession was evolved into one with high mobility, that is, the Social Merit System, a system of distribution of political (social ranks) and economical resources according to one’s contribution to the society, making the Qin-Han era a great golden one in China’s history.
The mainstream equality theories of modern West, as are different from the above Chinese approach, presume that equality is a built-in attribute inside everybody. Western philosophers are not blind to the fact that human society is characterized by ranking orders and inequality between men, but prejudices have prevented them from deriving the right conclusion from the above primary cognition. Take for instance L·Von·Bertalanffy, the Austrian-American founder of General System theory. He noticed that the concepts describing the organizational attributes of all living organisms and human society are very similar, such as wholeness, growth, differentiation, stratification, domination, control, rivalry, etc. These concepts are not seen in traditional physics, but are topics handled in systems theory. (Citation trans. from a Chinese version of General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, 贝塔朗菲：《一般系统理论——基础、发展和应用》，清华大学出版社，1987年，第43页。) But he failed to go on from there to round off the systems theory in such a way as to syncretize “individual values” and that of group life into one “whole” but ended in mechanically pitting the two sides of human life against each other and pushing “individual values” to such an extreme as to in effect label any possible further attempts at unifying the two as “totalitarianism”. (Ibid, 第48~49页。) As a matter of fact, the relationship between individuals and the society as a whole is much more complicated, so much more as beyond what traditional Western ideas about personal freedom can comprehend.
Another American scholar John Rawls, recognizing that differences in people’s natural endowment and social background can lead to inequalities in social economic life, proposed the “difference principle”, but likewise he held on to the traditional Western notion of freedom and equality as the primary principle of his Theory of Justice, with his difference principle only as a corrective complement. We do not see any practicability of this theory in real life – it remains only as an exercise in speculation about the philosophy of politics.
How do Westerners put their principle of equality in practice, then? Mainly by way of political or market competition. Its result is the extremalization of inequality in social life and persistent tension between resource supplies and human desires. To satisfy the ever-bloating desires of human individuals, Westerners resort to plundering other nations and nature under the banner of freedom and equality, resulting in incessant brutal wars and environmental disasters in the past century. But now in this 21st century, with the rapidly progressing science and technology greatly boosting human capabilities for war against fellow human beings and against nature, the Western civilization model has become a tremendous hindrance to the sustainable development of human society.
