the family and the state structures are hierarchic, and people in them relate to one another in unequal but reciprocal ways.
According to Confucius, a ruler who is virtuous and competent receives the “Mandate of Heaven” to rule. However, the mandate is conditional and transient: A ruler enjoys this privilege only as long as he provides benevolent governance. Should he fail, the multitudes of common people would suffer, and Heaven would hear their cries, snatch the mandate from him, and bestow it on a deserving successor.
Confucius believed that the “Golden Age” of Western Zhou embodied this kind of virtue, harmony, and stability. And he believed that the only way to restore it was to reestablish a social hierarchy in which each person has a designated place, stays in that place, and dutifully plays his or her designated role. Follow this prescription and all may live happily ever after; violate this principle and society loses its equilibrium and plunges into chaos.
Confucius believed that people are good by nature. However, it takes education to bring out that innate goodness. He divided people into the “superior person” and the “inferior person.” The two categories are defined by virtue, not by birth or wealth. Consequently, he put a premium on education, and advocated the principle that “education knows no class distinction.” Up to his time, education was the exclusive realm occupied by the elite, but he threw wide open the doors of education to the commoners. Later generations honored him as the “Model Teacher of All Time.”
His aesthetic thinking required a unity of goodness and beauty (i.e., the integration of literary refinement and political morality). This placed the heavy burden of moral and political functions on art and literature. It caused later rulers to require works of art and literature to be morally and politically “correct.”
Confucius focused his attention on people—their relationships to one another and to society. He had little to say about economics or science and technology. And in a time when most people were profoundly influenced by their beliefs in the supernatural, he conspicuously advised them, “Respect the ghosts and gods, but keep at a distance.”
Meng Zi (aka Mencius, 372–289 BCE) was a Confucian sage, second only to Confucius. He emphasized a man’s duty to his family, his clan, and his country. He was sidelined by conservatives in later times because of his radical idea that the multitude of common people is more precious than the ruler and state, and a popular uprising against a despotic government (Qi Yi, or bringing up righteousness) is justified.
Lao Zi and Daoism
Lao Zi (571?–471 BCE), the founder of Daoism, was a contemporary of Kong Zi, and his teachings were collected in the book Lao Zi (aka Dao De Jing). His focus was on the role of “Dao”—Chinese for “the way.” To him, Dao is not a volitional being with a will to intervene in human affairs, but rather a cosmic force, or a set of universal truths or natural laws. He is quoted as saying, “Man is submissive to the Earth, the Earth is observant of Heaven, Heaven is in compliance with Dao, and Dao conforms to nature.” His ultimate goal was to achieve harmony between humans and nature and among humans themselves. While Confucius endeavored to create an ideal society through social activism, Lao Zi believed in letting all things take their natural course with minimal human intervention. His core concepts are the “void” (nothingness), “non‐action” (to do nothing), and the dialectic (unity of opposites). He used parables to illustrate his abstract ideas. He said, “Nothing is the mother of all things.” To illustrate his point, he pointed out that the use of a house is the empty spaces (a void) between the solid walls, just as the use of a wheel is the hole (a void) that holds the axle of the cart. He believed in non‐action, asserting, “Dao does nothing, and accomplishes all things.” Sow the seed, let nature take its course, and the plant will grow on its own. Whatever one’s goal, be it to grow a plant, fight a battle, rule a country, or survive adverse circumstances, the best approach is to let things take their natural course.
In his ideal state, the ruler is content to control a small territory with a small population, and govern by non‐action (or laissez‐faire). He would discourage education in order to prevent ambition; cuts off commerce and travel to hold back greed and cunning; and keep his subjects bodily strong but mentally ignorant, so they can toil in the fields and live a simple and peaceful life. Thus, the ruler would have no need for active intervention; he can reign by doing nothing.
Lao Zi had a keen sense of how the principle of the unity of opposites applies to all things: light and darkness, male and female, good and evil, high and low, fortune and misfortune. Each exists in relation to its opposite, each is inseparable from its opposite, and each may evolve into its opposite. His idea of the unity of yin and yang, a primitive form of dialectic, lives on as a core concept in modern Chinese thinking.
Legalism: Xun Zi and Han Fei Zi
Xun Zi (313–238 BCE) was a political thinker and writer. He started out as a disciple of Confucius, but parted ways with his mentor over the fundamental issue of whether humans are good or evil by nature. He argues bluntly that “humans are evil by nature; goodness is artificial.” On that premise, he established the school of Legalism. His disciple Han Fei Zi (280?–233 BCE) synthesized the teachings of various Legalists to provide a practical blueprint for a Legalist state.
The Legalist goal is to build a “rich country, strong army.” But they have no illusions about achieving their goal by promoting personal virtue as is urged by the Confucians, or by doing nothing as is advised by the Daoists. On the contrary, they believe in ruthless activism. Han Fei Zi states that human nature is selfish, so people instinctively “rush toward what benefits them, and flee from what harms them.” Therefore, the ruler should make laws that provide rich rewards to those who contribute to his goals, and impose harsh punishment on those who don’t; and he should apply those laws equally to all persons, regardless of whether they are aristocrats or commoners, or rich or poor. Thus, the king can enhance his power and achieve his goals. It is noteworthy that the laws are promulgated by the ruler to strengthen his powers, not to limit them.
The overlords of the Warring States were ambitious empire builders. They lived in a constant state of war, and their main goal was to acquire the wealth necessary to build up their armies to win wars. It’s not hard to imagine how they contemptuously brushed aside mushy Confucianism and Daoism, and jumped to embrace Legalism as a practical guide to action. They would pursue its goal of “rich country, strong army” and follow its prescript of making harsh laws and vigorously enforcing them.
Suggested Readings and Viewings
1 Kwang‐chih Chang [Zhang Guangzhi], The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
2 Xingcan Chen, The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
3 Confucius (2010), dir. by Hu Mei.
4 Cho‐yun Hsu [Xu Zhuoyun], Ancient China in Transition: An Analysis of Social Mobility, 722–222 BC (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1965).
5 Feng Li, Early China: A Social and Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
6 Benjamin Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985).
3 China’s First Empire: The Qin and Han Dynasties, 221 BCE–220 CE
When the sage rules the state, he does not count on people doing good of themselves, but employs such measures that will keep them from doing any evil. 1
Historians sometimes join the Qin and Han Dynasties in a continuum, calling it “China’s First Empire.” There is good reason for doing so: The Qin Dynasty initiated an unprecedented form of centralized bureaucratic government,