Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”:

The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane

Part III: TRADITIONAL CHINESE CULTURE: AN INTEGRATED WHOLE

 EDITOR’S NOTE: This Part III of the author’s reply to Prof. Sam Crane’s criticism of the New Legalists explains the relationship between Confucianism, Legalism and Daoism and compares them with Western thought. All schools of thought and academic arguments are rooted in certain philosophical principle(s) underlying them, even if one who expresses a thought may not be aware of it. Therefore, to judge the soundness of a thought or an argument, we need, besides checking it against commonly perceived facts, to look at its philosophical base. If the philosophical principle underlying an argument is shaky, the argument itself cannot be sound. And a sound philosophy should be able to give a unifying explanation of everything that we know now and that we may know in the future, including itself.

Updated Brief history of the debate so far:
(Abbr.:
C1=Prof. Crane’ 1st article, etc.
L1=New Legalists’ 1st article, etc.
YZ=By Yuzhong Zhai, general editor of The New Legalist website (Chinese and English)
SL=By Sherwin Lu, editor of this English section of the website
to=in response to)

C1: The New Legalists: Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy for Nationalist Ends
C2: More on the New Legalists: The Philosophical Problems
C3: Once More Into the Breach: The New Legalists and the Tao Te Ching

L1:  An Apology for New Legalism in Reply to Prof. Sam Crane (YZ, to C1)

C4:  New Legalists, Again (to L1)

L2:  Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane, Part I: THE CHINESE NATION AND NATIONALISM (SL, to C1-C4)

C5: The New Legalists respond, again (to L2)

L3: Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane, Part II: LEGALIST QIN AND CHINESE FORM OF GOVERNMENT (SL, to C1-C4)

L4: The following (SL, to C1-C4)

THE TEXT

 Prof. Crane finds it inconceivable that a New Legalist should “invoke a Confucian idea” “to defend Legalism”, and he goes further on to say that this “demonstrates the philosophical and ethical bankruptcy of Legalism”.  Well, it is not inconceivable to this author, however, for a Western scholar to say so. It is actually so natural that it is almost inevitable. But, unfortunately, this is again another instance of misunderstanding of traditional Chinese culture. It is in this case like looking through the fragmentizing lens of Western academic perspective at the integrated whole of traditional Chinese learning, just as everything appears dim if looked at through dark glasses.

PROJECTION OF WESTERN DUALISTIC FRAGMENTIZATION ONTO HOLISTIC CHINESE CULTURE

Dualist Fragmentization vs. Holistic Integration in Social Life and Thought

Holism based on mutuality vs. dualistic fragmentization is one of the major differences between the Chinese and Western way of thinking and learning. Western dualism originates in the mind-matter dichotomy which represents a pair of opposites never unified as a whole, while Chinese holism is deeply rooted in the Daoist idea of Taiji, as illustrated in the Taijitu, or called Taiji Yin-Yang Twin-Fish Icon (太极阴阳双鱼图，see the figure below)， which shows the mutual complementarity and infiltration between the Yin and Yang aspects of everything from the whole existence down to the tiniest particle humans can “see”.

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 integrated 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. 

 The dualistic fragmentization of Western social thought and social life in all areas – economic, political, spiritual, racial, medical, etc. – is actually the root cause in ideology for all the crises facing the West and the world today. A detailed treatment of this topic would take a separate monograph, or even a thick book. So, let us return to Chinese learning now.

Chinese Learning: An Integrated Whole

 Chinese learning has run a long course from a sole remote source -- the official academy under the royal governments (Wang Guan Xue, 王官学) of the Three Dynasties of Xia-Shang-(Western) Zhou ( 22nd - 8th centuries B.C.). At that time, there was no private learning, nor division into different schools of thought.

 Later, with the weakening of the royal government of Zhou, private schools appeared, of which the best-known was the one conducted by Confucius, who at the same time compiled Spring and Autumn Annals，the Book of Changes, the Book of Poetry, etc. This initiated the new era of “contention of a hundred schools of thought”, among which were the Confucianists, the Daoists, the Legalists, the Mohists, the Logicians, the Agronomists, the Military Strategists, etc. Though there were differences and debates between the different schools and within each of them (to be discussed further below), they were, however, all branches of the same headstream. So, the relationship between them was more mutually complementary like division of labor than mutually incompatible like such rivaling modern ideologies as creationism vs. evolutionism or humanitarianism vs. social Darwinism. The mutual complementarity can be seen from some of their names (Legal-ists, Logic-ians, agro-nomists, Military Strateg-ists) as well as from their respective focus points. Take the major three for instances:
    Daoism           – philosophy
    Legalism         -- political, economic and legal system and policies
    Confucianism – moral principles and education
Obviously, the above three schools of thought respectively concentrated on the different aspects of social superstructure (spiritual and political) and, together with the other schools mainly dealing with material and technical matters, made up the whole of Chinese culture. Not only did all these schools of thought complement each other, but they overlap and assimilate ideas from each other as well. If some one looks at this holistic composition through the Western-style fragmentizing lens and sees a battle royal only, it will be a distortion of the whole picture.

Therefore, for a Legalist, traditional or New, or people of any other schools to quote from Confucianism or others to prove his own point does not necessarily demonstrate inconsistency or “philosophical and ethical bankruptcy”. On the contrary, history and reality have both demonstrated “the philosophical and ethical bankruptcy” of the fragmentizing way of looking at things, of thinking and learning.

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

The Symbolic Significance of the Current Debate

 Inspite of what has been said about the holistic nature of Chinese learning, however, inconsistencies or major disagreements did exist between and within the various schools. Especially, the contention between Legalism and Confucinism has had the most powerful impact upon Chinese history. The current debate between Prof. Crane and the New Legalists is actually a continuation and extension (on a global scale) of that long-time historical controversy. What is especially intriguing about this debate is one of the parties’ being a Westerner openly taking a stand for Confucianism agaist Legalism in a live fight. Though there have been quite some Western scholars who favor Confucianim as against Legalism or attribute whatever they deem valuable to them in Chinese culture to Confucius, rightly or wrongly, justifiably or not justifiably, Prof. Crane’s position has a special symbolic significance today when Western and Chinese cultures are coming to close quarters with each other on such a scale that it is becoming the focus of attention of the whole world. Symbolic of what, then? It is symbolic of an ideological alliance between a self-defeating Confucianism and mainstream Western thought against the original mainstream Chinese thought mainly represented by the Daoist-Legalist (Huang-Lao) school before Confucianism was singled out by imperial order as the core system of thought for the whole nation.

Confucianist Ideal of Benevolence and Justice vs. Western Pursuit after Self-Interest

Fairly speaking, original Confucianism did not share the same underlying moral principle with either Christianity or modern Western liberalism. While the highest moral standard in the West has been either “Love thy neighbor” as applied within the limited circle of “chosen people” or the social Darwinist jungle law for the pursuit of maximum self-interest or an expedient combination of the two as a sort of double tactics, Confucianism, as represented by its founders, later-time masters and many ordinary followers, have sincerely advocated universal love, i.e., benevolence (仁) and justice (义) as covering all human beings under Heaven (天下) and opposed injustice and aggression against other people merely for selfish interests (利). All major Chinese schools of thought, including Daoists, Legalists, Mohists, etc. shared this high moral principle.

Legalism vs. Confucianism/Western Thought: Macro Social Regulation and Adjustment vs. Individualistic Laissez-Faire

How comes, then, that Confucianism came to be in serious disagreemnt with other Chinese schools of thought, especially Daoist-Legalists, and be an ally of Western liberalism? The root cause for the threesome love-hate relationship is in the opposing wordview patterns respectively adopted by the three parties.

Traditional Western cosmic and social view has been characterized by mechanic atomism and atomistic individualism. In the eyes of mainstream Western scholars, the universe is in the final analysis an extremely huge aggregation of certain uniformly defined “basic particles”, and in the same way the human society one of abstractly and uniformly defined ”individuals”.  So, the liberalists believe that, if each and every individual is free to think and act, then the society is a free society. All their economic and political theories are, finally speaking, founded on this erroneous basic view.

The Confucianists’ view of individuals is not so abstract nor so uniform, as they distinguish between sovereign and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, etc. But, as moralists and moral educationists, they believe that, if each and every one individual is being educated in morals, the whole society will be a moral society. So, even though they do not share a same social goal with Western liberalists, they do share the same belief in the laissez faire policy on the macro social level and in opposing necessary governmental regulation and adjustment of social politico-economic relations (by distorting the Daoist concept of “Wu Wei”, 无为, see further below), with the same result of indulging a handful of privileged oppressors/exploiters, and do share the same antagonistic attitude towards those (Legalist or non-capitalistic reformers respectively) who propose and/or act to balance and integrate all diverse interests under Heaven so as actually and effectively, not just by abstract sweet talks, to promote universal benevolence, justice, high moral values and freedom.

What with this atomistic way of thinking (which catered to the self-interest motives of many scholar-officials), not only did the Confucianists tend not to see the wood (macro social relationships) for the trees (worthy/unworthy individuals, 君子/小人) and, wittingly or unwittingly, often reversed right and wrong in domestic affairs, they also tended to extend the laissez-faire policy to foreign relations and fail to maintain vigilance and effective defense against potential and real aggressors, thus inviting both domestic and foreign “brutality” (which Prof. Crane wrongly attributed to Legalists) and defeating their own moral ideal for universal benevolence and justice.

Meanwhile, the Daoist-Legalist belief in the necessity of macro societal regulation of social relations through the implementation of a law that abides by the Heavenly Dao is based on a view of the world (cosmic and social) as a dynamically-balanced (between Yin and Yang) multi-dimensional whole, which is similar to that of the modern Complex Systems perspective. For instance, the effectiveness of moral education involves a change of consciousness in the mind of the educated, and a person’s consciousness, being changed or not, is the result of interplay and interpenetration between his subjective mind and the objective world (matter). So, moral teaching by verbal instruction and personal example would not be effective on the macro societal level if social relationships are based on an unjust, and thus not benevolent, economic-political system, i.e., without a dynamic balance and integration of all diverse interests. Thus, the Legalists’ making and enforcing of a Dao-abiding law to dynamically balance social relationships and interests between the privileged aristocracy and underprivileged common people was actually stopping “brutality” and promoting benevolence on both the macro societal and micro individual level, not otherwise. It is the opponents of the reform, be they pedant Confucianist scholars or Liberalists, not the reformers and their supporters, who are being “brutish”. Obviously, by attacking instead of defending the Legalist reform, those self-styled disciples of Confucius have been preventing the Sage’s noble social ideal from being realized. What an irony! (More discussion of the differences between Confucianism and Daoism-Legalism to follow further below.)

Behind-the-Door Co-operation between Confucianism and Legalism

But not all Confucianists were opposed to Legalists. The two schools were not totally incompatible with each other as fire and water. On the contrary, unprejudiced Confucianists and Legalists, especially in the earlier times, respected and co-operated with each other. An outstanding instance was Kong Fu (孔鲋, 264-208 B.C.), a ninth generation descendent and faithful follower of Confucius. He sent his disciple Shu Sun Tong (叔孙通) to take office in the imperial government after Qin unified China. Later he was bestowed the noble title of Wen Tong Jun (文通君) and assigned the high-ranking official position of Shao Fu (少傅) in Lu (鲁国).

Actually, many wise rulers of later times assimilated good ideas from all schools of thought: from Legalism for macro regulation and adjustment of social politico-economic relations, from Confucianism for personal and civil moral cultivation, from Daoism for both, etc. Behind the facade of Confucianist domination, true co-operation did exist from time to time, which accounted for the intermittent golden ages running through all major dynasties.

Confucianism: Spoiled in pursuit for Spoils

 As a matter of fact, no schools of thought can ever be said to have reached perfection without flaws or loopholes, nor is any school monolithic in the sense that everybody belonging to it always thinks the same. Such was also the case with Confucianism, Legalism, Daoism, etc. If a fair attitude was adopted towards them, then their merits could have helped bring about the greatest benefits to people while their respective inadequacies been remedied.
|
But in Chinese history, not all the rulers were wise enough to adopt the right approach to this ideology issue. It was just because the fundamental inadequacies of the Confucianist system of thought catered to the self-interest motives of some rulers and influential scholars, and also because of historically determined institutional flaws, Confucianism was artificially elevated time and again to an ever increasingly higher position it did not deserve. Although, at first and at some later times, especially in the earlier years of almost all major dynasties, this ideological favoritism was mostly nominal in the sense that Confucianism was used as a facade while Legalist policies were carried on or restored – in spite of this, at many other times, sweet but empty talks about morality in Confucianist phraseology was used by those incompetent rulers and pedant scholar-officials just to cover up widespread official corruption, social moral degeneration and their own incompetence and to suppress popular resentment and demand for reform and justice.

True Partnership vs. Convenient Marriage

 To sum up: on the one hand, Confucianism shared with Daoism-Legalism the ultimate social ideal, as far as the original intention of its founder is concerned at least, but not in the way to realize it, while on the other hand it shares with Western liberalism a basic thinking pattern but not the social goal. Therefore, the relationship between Confucianism and Legalism can be one of true partnership, complementing and co-operating with each other for a common noble purpose, whereas that between Confucianism and Western liberalism can only be one of convenient marriage at best.

LEGALISM VS. CONFUCIANISM IN DAOIST TAIJI PERSPECTIVE

Justice (义) vs. Interest (利)

 The justice-vs.-interest issue is the central theme in traditional Chinese thought, just as self-interest is for modern Western discourse. And all major Chinese schools of thought share the same moral standard of placing justice over self-interest, not like mainstream Western thinkers whose central concern is always maximization of self-interest. However, Confucianists tend to share with Westerners their dualistic way of thinking, while Legalists follow the Daoist Taiji way of thinking.

 As the Taiji icon shows, the black and the white in it, besides complementing and being transformed into each other, they also mutually infiltrate: there being black in white and white in black. This implies: on the metaphysical level, the world we perceive always contains the human “mind” factor, i.e., not totally “objective”, and human perception always the “matter” factor, i.e., not totally “subjective”; in social science, there is always the economic power relations factor in the political and cultural superstructure and, conversely, always the political and cultural power relations factor in the economic infrastructure, and always the production relations factor in productive forces and vice versa; and now in Chinese ethics there is always the “justice” factor in “interest” and the “interest” factor in “justice”.

What is “justice” in the simplest term, then? According to Daoist teaching,

        “It is the Way of Heaven
To remove where there is excess
And add where there is lack.
The way of people is different:
They take away where there is need
And add where there is surplus.”
(Laozi: Dao De Jing, 77, Trans. by Charles Muller.)

Is this not obvious enough that the highest justice  (“Way of Heaven”) involves interest? Is this not also obvious that, if this Way of Heaven is not followed, that is, justice not ensured, those who have “excess/surplus” would be punished by the Way of Heaven through the agency of those who “lack” the basic “need”, and, so, everybody’s interest involves justice? This is the Legalist, and also the New Legalist, way of thinking. Unfortunately, it has not been shared by those pendant Confucianists, who on the one hand pushed the “justice over self-interest” theme to the absurd dualistic extreme of “uphold Heaven’s principle and extinguish human desires” （“存天理，灭人欲”）instead of regulating human desires according to Heaven’s principle as Daoist-Legalists advocated, while on the other indulging and defending the excess desires of the privileged few in defiance of Heaven’s principle by vilifying and attacking Legalist reforms.

 Therefore, it is totally justifiable for the New Legalists to cite the commonly shared Chinese “justice vs. interest” theme, and not for Prof. Crane to accuse them for that.

Daoist Wu Wei vs. Confucianist/Liberalist Laissez-faire

 As noted above, Confucianists and liberalists (Western and Chinese), have tried to defend their laissez-faire argument by distorting the Daoist “Wu Wei” (无为) principle.

 Let us see how Laozi defines Wu Wei:

“Therefore the sages say:
I do not force my way and the people transform themselves;
I enjoy my serenity and the people correct themselves;
I do not interfere and the people enrich themselves;
I have no desires
“And the people find their original mind.”
(Do De Jing, 57, Trans. by Charles Muller)

Obviously, the opposite of Wu Wei as implied here is “force [one’s] way”; ”interfere”; ”[act on one’ own] desires”, and, if we relate this quote to the other one above from Laozi, we may easily see on the one hand that this opposite of Wu Wei denotes the same thing as “the way of [those] people” who “take away where there is need and add where there is surplus”, which is the same as “force [one’s] way” to satisfy one’s own selfish “desires”, and on the other that Wu Wei means to follow “the Way of Heaven”, i.e., “To remove where there is excess and add where there is lack”.

Laissez-faire advocates might argue that, since it is the way of “Heaven”, then it should mean that we human beings should take “no action” (as seen in some other translations of Laozi) but to leave the task to the “invisible hand” of “Heaven”. So, It may turn out that they have found the “invisible hand” in Chinese Daoist classics!

But, this is just another example of dualistic thinking typical of those people. As we know, here “Heaven” is just a synonym of “Nature” or the all-embracing “Existence”, which certainly includes human beings. In Daoist philosophy, “Heaven” or “Dao” is not something apart from any form of existence but penetrates everything. There is no dualistic mind-matter splitting in traditional Chinese thinking like that in Western thought (As for Confucius, his position on this issue is unknown, as he was not interested in metaphysical philosophy at all). Most Westerners believe or profess they believe that everything was created by God, but nobody ever cares or dares to ask or answer “Who created Him?” They just rest contented with this mind-matter split in the way primitive or pre-scientific peoples had done.

In the monist, holistic, unifying Daoist perspective, Heaven and the Heavenly Dao embraces everything. The basic feature of the Dao is a comprehensive dynamic balance between Yin and Yang in and between all things and on and between all levels of the human society and all existence. And everything everywhere, including human beings both as individuals and as a species, is embodying the functioning of the Dao all the time. If one willfully tries to upset the balancing functioning of the Dao, then the never failing functioning of the Dao will force you to a balance with everything else or within oneself. If the social order is not in compliance with the Dao, then it will sooner or later be forced into relative compliance through the agency of those more or less enlightened people, i.e., people who have purged themselves of selfish desires in a degree through moral cultivation and thus are able to perceive the Dao. For instance, when the aristocratic class or big land-owning class, or monopolistic merchant class (the ancient equivalent of today’s monopoly capital) or other privileged minority group was not restricted in their selfish pursuit for power and wealth at the expense of peasants, small businessmen, craftsmen, etc. who comprised the majority of the population, thus causing social disorder and decay, enlightened rulers and officials would adopt the Legalist policies to bring back the social relational balances, protect the interests of the majority of the people and restore a strong and prosperous nation. This has been happening all the time in Chinese history.

According to Daoists, not to force one’s way involves both the motive issue and a timing issue, and actually the two issues are closely related. Only people without a selfish motive can have the wisdom for best judgment as to when is the right moment to “give the boat a push along the currents” (so to speak) of the Dao, not too early nor too late. And if the social order is more or less in compliance with the Dao, the ruler should not do anything to change it. In a word, “following the Dao” or ”no going against the Dao” – this is the deep-lying meaning of Wu Wei, or “Wei Wu Wei” (“为无为”, Dao De Jing, 63), not laissez faire.

CALL FOR PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN DAOISTS, LEGALISTS AND CONFUCIANISTS

The most important issue regarding Wu Wei government is the institution of the rule of law, not any other kind of law but a law abiding by the Dao as explained above. Only when such a law is in effect could Wu Wei government be actually realized. From the Dao comes the law, and from the rule of law, complemented by individual moral cultivation, comes the whole scale development of virtue on the macro level; then virtue in turn upholds the rule of law and the law facilitates the functioning of the Dao in human society – this is what Daoist-Legalists believe in. So, here comes the rule of law issue and the morality issue as well, and thus the Legalist mission and the Confucian mission, and thus the rationale for a genuine partnership between Daoists, Legalists and Confusianits.

Hence the mission of the New Legalists: to bring about this partnership and to promote the mutual understanding between the Chinese and Western cultures so as to combat the hegemony of global monopoly capital in the name of freedom. And we sincerely invite Prof. Crane to join in this cross-national, cross-cultural enterprise for the common good of all peoples of the world.

Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane

Part III: TRADITIONAL CHINESE CULTURE: AN INTEGRATED WHOLE

EDITOR’S NOTE: This Part III of the author’s reply to Prof. Sam Crane’s criticism of the New Legalists explains the relationship between Confucianism, Legalism and Daoism and compares them with Western thought. All schools of thought and academic arguments are rooted in certain philosophical principle(s) underlying them, even if one who expresses a thought may not be aware of it. Therefore, to judge the soundness of a thought or an argument, we need, besides checking it against commonly perceived facts, to look at its philosophical base. If the philosophical principle underlying an argument is shaky, the argument itself cannot be sound. And a sound philosophy should be able to explain everything that we know now and that we may know in the future, leaving nothing unexplained.