The Useless Tree

Was "Lao Tzu" a Vegan?

    A reader, Chris, writes in with this question.  I have never really thought about it before, but I put my mind to it a bit today and the answer I came up with is "probably not."

    Chris asks because he knows some folks who have come to believe that veganism, or perhaps at least vegetarianism, might be the best way to practice Taoism.  Now, I should say right at the outset that I am not a religious Taoist and am not familiar with the practices of religious Taoism.  A different answer might be forthcoming from a religious Taoist perspective.  But from a philosophical Taoist point of view, I am fairly confident is saying that one need not be a vegan or a vegetarian to follow the philosophical precepts of the Tao Te Ching.

      I should also say right up front here that I am one of those people who believes there was no such person as "Lao Tzu."  No disrespect for those who hold other views - I have just been too influenced by reading A. C. Graham.  So, I guess my answer is really: "the people who wrote the text of the Tao Te Ching were not vegans."

     OK, how about some textual support for my conclusion.  The most telling point is the first line of passage 60: "Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish."  This suggests that the writers of the text were so familiar with cooking fish that they could invoke it as a metaphor for governing.  Had they sworn off eating fish by the time they wrote the text?  Who knows.  But it seems that they were quite comfortable with the idea of cooking, and presumably eating, fish.

     Passage 80 also suggests meat eaters.  This stanza describes something like an ideal Taoist society, in the view of the Tao Te Ching.  And here people, content in their homes, can hear their "chickens and dogs calling back and forth."  The question thus becomes: why do they have chickens?  Dogs could have been pets and companions, as well, possibly, as a meal or two.  But chickens are probably food.  Unless some intrepid historian can come forward to show us that people in pre-Qin China kept chickens as pets, I think we have to assume that chicken-eating was understood as a part of a good, simple lifestyle.  The passage also says that people should "find pleasure in their food."   A bowl of chicken soup, perhaps?

     Killing animals to eat them would be allowed under the idea put forth in passage 29 that things "...sometimes kill and sometimes die."  And we could throw in a bit of passage 5 along these lines: Heaven and earth "are inhumane: they use the ten thousand things like straw dogs."  Just be careful where you throw the bones after dinner.

       I don't see in this a clear prohibition against eating animals.  There is, of course, counsel to live, and eat, simply and frugally: "The five tastes blur tongues" (passage 12).  But that simplicity can include, it seems to me, a modest carnivorous diet. 

        If we were to broaden the question out to include Chuang Tzu, I think the non-vegetarian interpretation is strengthened.  The great Cook Ting passage (scroll down a bit) shows us that a man can find Way in butchering oxen.  Again, even if the enlightened cook is not eating the oxen himself, the eating of oxen is not presented as a bad thing.

      Conversely, of course, there is nothing in the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu that would preclude veganism or vegetarianism.  If that is an expression of one's Te (integrity), so be it. 

      In the end, it is more about simplicity and letting go of desire and expectations than it is a matter of any particular diet. 

The Greatest Olympic Protest Ever

       The problems in Tibet of late are linked to the Olympics.  The torch relay has already been used as a site of protest.  Over the next month we will likely see significant demonstrations (I am guessing in places like London, Sydney, San Francisco, Paris) as the torch moves around the world.  And it will not only be Tibet protesters, but also Falungong, Dafur activists, and human rights advocates more generally.

     All of this got me to thinking about Olympic protests.  And the one that stands out so powerfully in my mind is this one:


















      

     1968.  I was a boy watching on TV.  It was a stunning moment, as two African-Americans - John Carlos and Tommie Smith - put on black gloves and raised their fists in a symbol of black power.  They were criticized at the time but the clear justice of their cause has made this picture an icon of the struggle for civil rights in the US. 

       It was a good thing, forcing white Americans to confront their prejudices and inspiring black Americans to claim their rights.  The picture was a mirror of America's failings and a challenge to overcome them.  It was, in a sense, a Mencian thing, because it spoke truth to power and was generated by an internal desire for justice, internal both to Carlos and Smith themselves and to the United States more broadly.  "Duty is internal," Mencius says.  We have an appetite for doing the right thing.  Carlos and Smith acted on their sense of duty and they reminded us all of the necessity of performing our duties to others in a respectful and conscientious manner.

      Olympic protests can be constructive and positive.  Will there be a 2008 Chinese equivalent of Carlos and Smith?

There is a Way to be Good Again

    I watched The Kite Runner last night.  I had not read the book when it appeared a couple of years ago but had noticed the reviews.  The movie is good, if a bit unpersuasive at times.  But what stood out for me, as it was designed to, was the key line (which is repeated a couple of times and which concisely states the central theme of the story):

        There is a way to be good again.

      This struck me as a fundamentally Confucian attitude.  The "again" implies that we all are originally good, as Mencius would tell us, and we can find our way back to that basic goodness through right intentions and actions, which pretty much sums up the life's work of both Confucius and Mencius.  However selfish we have been, whatever our mistakes in life, we can do the right thing now, and that will put us on a path to being good in an active, performative sense.

     I wondered, however, if there was a Taoist angle in this.  My reading of Taoism is bound up with my understanding of Confucianism, and vice versa, so I somethings roll things together in my mind (not a bad thing...).  I imagine, however, that some would reject a Taoist claim on this sentence/sentiment, because Taoism would eschew judgments of "good" and "bad."  Those are human-created moral categories that can take us away from the natural unfolding of Way.  Things, in Way, are neither good nor bad, they just are.   That's a fair point.  However, I think it misses the redemptive promise of both the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu.

        It is more obvious in the Tao Te Ching, when the text takes a critical stance toward the exploitation of the weak by the powerful and the wastefulness and futility of war.  In calling our attention to the unnecessary and un-Way-like qualities of such behavior, the text is, at least implicitly, suggesting to us a better way forward.  "There is a way to be good again," it almost seems to say.

        Chuang Tzu is subtler.  But his acceptance of death - and his counsel to us to accept life and death as they ebb and flow - has a liberatory implication.  We can get ourselves free from the anxieties of death or worries about what we may or may not accomplish in our lives, and in that freedom we can find a certain solace and comfort and, perhaps, goodness.

       But even if the Chuang Tzu connection is a bit of a stretch, it is a line worth remembering:

        There is a way to be good again.

Tibet: Media Bias versus Media Control (with reference to Han Fei Tzu)

    I've been quiet on Tibet since my first post.  It takes time to absorb the events as they unfold, and to hear various points of view.  But one thing has struck me of late, the question of media bias.

     Jeremiah does a good job over at The China Beat reviewing some of the criticisms that have emerged regarding Western media coverage of the events in Tibet.  I will not get bogged down in the various controversies.  Suffice it to say that some Western news outlets did make some mistakes in how they initially covered the big day of rioting on March 14th.  These mistakes have been seized upon by some Chinese to paint a picture of fundamental and irremediable anti-Chinese bias.   But there is a rather big difference between media bias and media control.

     Take CNN for instance.  It has been castigated because it cropped a picture of the March 14 disturbances in such a manner as to cut out a number of rampaging Tibetans.  When challenged, CNN people gave a unpersuasive response.  Let's just say it was, at least, a misjudgment that could have been corrected but was not.  But does it suggest systematic bias?  To substantiate that claim the critics should consider the full range of CNN coverage of the riots.  For example, a few days later, on March 20th, CNN ran an interview with James Miles, one of the few foreigners in Lhasa at the time to report.  It clearly stated that Tibetans were attacking  Han and Hui Chinese and that the state security forces were acting with restraint. That same message gradually emerged from other Western news sources as well.  The initial impression created by the early pictures has been filled out with a more detailed and accurate portrayal.

      I do not mean to defend CNN from criticism.  Its coverage is far from perfect and is shaped by certain biases.  Charges of bias are utterly common in regard to any US media outlet on virtually any story (Clinton says the media is biased in favor of Obama, and Obama says Clinton is favored, etc).   But under conditions of relative freedom of the press, bias can be challenged, new information can be brought forward, and a more accurate record established.  That is what is happening for those who follow the story in the US.

      However, that does not and cannot happen in China.  Stricter state control of the media makes it impossible to bring forth alternative viewpoints and survey a broader range of information and interpretations.  There is close to nothing in the Chinese media (save a few brave bloggers and a group of largely-ignored intellectuals) to challenge the claim that the Dalai Lama was somehow behind the outburst of violence.  Political control of the media makes it very difficult to explore the larger questions at hand: why did Tibetans riot on the 14th?  What happened in the days before?  We know that some monks were arrested on the 10th what was the nature of their apprehension and detention?  And what are the larger economic and social dynamics that might lead young Tibetan men to violence?  Yes, there was likely some external encouragement from Tibet independence groups (note: The Dalai Lama is not an independence advocate) and that is part of the story - a part we in the West can see and understand - but there is also an internal, Chinese aspect to the story - one that the CCP obstructs through its media control.

     Western media, to repeat, are not perfect.  They are biased in many ways.  But relative freedom matters.  And the relative freedom of Western media allows us to contrast and compare many different sources to come to a better understanding.  The CCP does not allow citizens of China that possibility.

     In this regard, the Party once again reveals its Legalist basis.  Chapter 12 of the Han Fei Tzu, "The Difficulties of Persuasion," could easily be a primer for Communist propagandists - and a resource to PR  people everywhere.  Here are the opening lines:

On the whole, the difficult thing about persuading others is not that one lacks the knowledge needed to state his case nor the audacity to exercise his abilities to the full.  On the whole, the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person son is trying to persuade and to be able to fit one's words to it.

 I suppose that the Party is quite successful in knowing the mind of the angry young middle class Han Chinese men who call for Tibetan blood on the internet.  As to persuading the world that all is happy and united in the Olympic utopia: not so much.

"Bush's War"

    Last night I watched a good portion of the Frontline program, "Bush's War."  It was a frustrating reminder of the many, many inhumane decisions that led to the US war in Iraq.  Then, this morning, I saw this piece in the NYT, describing how Bush is essentially going to maintain force levels (so much for the "temporary surge") through the end of his term, continue his deeply irresponsible denial, and just hand off the war and all of its problems to the next president. 

       Two things stand out in all of these shameful stories: the stunning arrogance and ignorance of the top decision-makers, Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc; but also the cowardice of other important leaders, people who could have chosen to not participate in the process of war-making by resigning their high level positions and becoming public critics.  Why did Colin Powell not walk away?  He knew what was likely to happen.  Why didn't more military men and intelligence agents resign and say what they could publicly?  Were they too worried about pensions and professional standing?  Were they elevating loyalty to a single leader above loyalty to broader national principles?   Given what has happened in Iraq, they should all be working against McCain now, who seems oblivious to the disaster and is pressing for further military action against Iran.  But they're not, not most of them at least.  They are just not noble-minded in a Confucian sense:

It's clear from this that Confucius deplored anyone enriching a ruler who didn't practice Humane government.  And he deplored even more those who waged war for such a ruler.  In wars for land, the dead crowd the countryside.  In wars for cities, the dead fill the cities.  This is called helping the land feed on human flesh.  Death is not punishment enough for such acts.

Hence, those who excel at war should receive the highest punishment.  Next come those who form the august lords into alliances.  And finally those who open up wild land hoping to increase profits.  Mencius, 7(4A).14

     I'm not advocating capital punishment for Bush and Cheney, nor do I think Mencius is, either.  The point is to remind us just how horrible their actions have been.  Impeachment for both would suffice, and application of relevant war crimes statues.

      Indeed, watching the long, sad documentary (part two is tonight) and remembering Cheney's central role in the whole mess, these words came to mind:

There's only one way to know if people are good or evil: look at the choices they make.  Mencius, 11(6A).14

      Cheney has shown us, by his choices, that he is not a good man.

      I can see what is going to happen: Bush will "stay the course" in Iraq, hand off the mess to president Obama, and then, when Obama has to make the necessary choices for withdrawal (which could usher in a period of increased violence) the right-wing will blame Obama for "losing Iraq."  but the reality is that Iraq is already lost.  Violence will continue whether we are there or not.  It may be refracted by our presence, but the underlying political conditions that produce it are not receding.  It is a no-win situation, so we must find a way forward to the least bad loss. 

      But one thing must be remembered in all of this: Bush lost the war.

4000

     Four thousand American soldiers have been killed in Iraq.  Precise figures for the numbers of Iraqis killed are not available for political reasons - neither the US nor the current Iraqi government wants to detail the full scale of civilian deaths - but they likely run into the hundreds of thousands: a massive humanitarian disaster.   And the prospects for something like a reasonable political outcome, one that might minimally justify the horrible human cost, remain bleak.  Violence is moving up again as the current US military strategy again fails to reach a workable political settlement.  All in all, it is an unmitigated catastrophe, one that reminds us of the general futility of war.

Auspicious weapons are tools of misfortune.
Things may not all despise such tools,
but a master of Way stays clear of them.

The noble-minded treasure the left when home
and the right when taking up weapons of war.

Weapons are tools of misfortune,
not tools of the noble-minded.
When there's no other way,
they take up weapons with tranquil calm,
finding no glory in victory.

To find glory in victory
is to savor killing people,
and if you savor killing people
you'll never guide all beneath heaven.

We honor the left in celebrations
we honor the right in lamentations,
so captains stand on the left
and general on the right.
but use them both as if conducting a funeral:

when so many people are being killed
it should be done with tears and mourning.
And victory too should be conducted like a funeral.

Tao Te Ching, 31

    Whatever happens in Iraq, however the terrible violence ends, for it must at some point, we should always remember that there is no glory in "victory."

Taiwan's Presidential Election

    No big surprises here.  Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT candidate, appears to have won about 58% of the vote.  This is pretty much what was expected following January's legislative elections. 

    We should be careful, however, in reading too much into this outcome.  While it is true that the KMT will almost certainly seek accommodations with the PRC government on a number of specific functional issues (airline travel, public health issues, investment, etc.), this will not amount to anything like "unification."  Remember, Ma Ying-jeou pledged during the campaign not to hold negotiations with the PRC on the question of unification during his first term. I suspect he will hold to that pledge, especially in light of the current turbulence in Tibet.   There will be an improvement in the atmospherics, and that is important, but Ma and the KMT will maintain Taiwan's de facto independence.

     The CCP will be happy for now.  They can at least be assured that no Chen Shui-bian style "provocations" will emanate from Taibei for the near term.  They need all the calm they can get, given their problems with Tibet now.  Once the Olympics are past, however, I would bet that Beijing will start pressing Ma for some sort of demonstration that "unification" is in process.  And I would further bet that nothing Ma does will be sufficient for Beijing on that score.  So, by the end of 2008, or early in 2009, we will likely see accusations that Ma is a "splittist" of the Dalai Lama type.  In other words, the honeymoon will likely be rather short. 

      I hope I'm wrong, but that will require a certain acceptance on the part of Beijing with a status quo that is not really moving, politically, toward "unification."  Some in Beijing may be will to be patient in the belief that economic interdependence will gradually evolve into closer political ties, in an EU sort of way, but nationalists will call for faster, direct action, and that, I suspect, will dictate policy after the Olympics.

     In a broader sense, this election illustrates the maturity of Taiwanese democracy.  This will be the second time in a decade (the first being in 2000) when executive political authority has been peaceably passed from one party to another by means of free and fair contested elections based on universal suffrage.   It also reminds us that democracy is very much possible in "Chinese" cultural contexts (even though DPP supporters in Taiwan would contest the usage of the term "Chinese" here).  And that brings me back to Mencius, who puts forth a notion of popular consent, or something that comes pretty close to a notion of popular consent. 

     In chapter 9 (or 5A, depending upon your translation), he tells us that "all beneath Heaven" (i.e. political legitimacy) cannot be passed from one ruler to another: "The Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another."  Only "heaven" and "the people" have the authority to bestow legitimacy.  He illustrates the point with the passage of the Mandate from Yao to Shun.   Yao found Shun, but he did not personally bestow legitimacy:

When he [Yao] put Shun in charge of the sacrifices, the spirits welcomed  them.  This is how Heaven accepted him.  When put Shun in charge of the nation's affairs, they were well ordered and the people were at peace.  This is how the people accepted him.  So Heaven gave it [all beneath heaven] to him and the people give it to him.  This is what I mean when I say the Son of Heaven cannot give all beneath Heaven to another.

 Of course, Heaven, insofar as it denotes something like "fate" or "destiny," is a rather vague standard here.  How can we know Heaven's tendency?  Heaven, in and of itself, does not speak.  Mencius has an answer, which he finds in a saying from Emperor Wu:

Heaven sees through the eyes of the people.  Heaven hears through the ears of the people.

    This suggests that popular opinion is a reliable indicator of Heaven's tendencies.  And that is what just happened in Taiwan: people expressed their political opinions through free and fair elections.  The ruling party was found wanting, and the opposition party was granted legitimate authority.  Peacefully.  Very much in keeping with Mencius.

Do Children Need Fathers?

    That may seem an odd question to some, but it is inspired by a piece over at Slate by Emily Yoffe.  A couple of excerpts:

In the last 50 years, there has been an extraordinary decoupling of marriage and procreation. In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40 percent. Out-of-wedlock births used to be such a source of shame that families tried to hide them: Singer Bobby Darin was born to a teen mother and raised to believe she was his sister. But now out-of-wedlock births are greeted with a shrug. Some say they're an understandable response to economic realities. Others say they're a liberating change from the shotgun-wedding ethic that shackled two unsuitable people together for life.

...

...Some researchers identify out-of-wedlock births as the chief cause for the increasing stratification and inequality of American life, the first step that casts children into an ever more rigid caste system. Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.

     Yoffe is sensible: she does not advocate keeping all bad, abusive marriages together.  But she sees the negative effects, especially economic effects, that single parenthood brings to children.  Thus my question.

      In an ideal sense, yes, children benefit from having a mother and a father (I am thinking socially here, not biologically).  A certain household division of labor, which need not the traditional dad as breadwinner and mom as homemaker, can be good for parenting.  When one is working, the other can focus on the kid(s).  A male/female paring might be good in that it exposes the child(ren) to different world views (to the extent that there are different male and female sensibilities, which, in a general sort of way, I think there are).  But this is the ideal, and not all situations live up to the ideal.

     In judging circumstances that appear, for whatever reason, less than ideal, I think the main criteria should be love and attention and care.  Those are the most essential parental qualifications.  If they can be provided by a single mother, or two mothers or two fathers, so be it.  Indeed, it might be better to keep an uncaring biological father out of the picture, if doing so will allow a single mother to give her child(ren) the love and attention and care they need.  If a father's presence disrupts or diminishes the love and attention and care children require, then he is not needed.

      The converse would also then be true.  There could be situations where a mother is the problem.  If a father can do the job better by himself, if the mother is abusive or addicted or whatever, then there is nothing magic about keeping her around.  Yes, such separations can be painful for children.  They should only be considered if (and I am sounding mighty consequentialist here) the the amount of love and attention and care would be increased.   That might be a hard calculation to make but it would, I believe, serve the "best interests of the child(ren)."

     If there is an economic cost to single parenthood, that might be addressed by public policy. We should not maintain relationships that undermine love and attention and care on economic grounds alone.  In those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that single parenting is better for the child(ren) than a traditional dual mother/father arrangement, then some sorts of educational and/or insurance programs for the child(ren) might be enacted to address the shortfall.  It would have to be carefully crafted so as not to create a significant incentive to single parenthood.   But neither should loving and caring single parents necessarily have to bear such  significant economic costs.

    But what about the young woman who decides to have a child with no thought of marriage.  Is she acting recklessly and subjecting herself and her child to likely poverty?  Perhaps.  Yoffe has the statistics that suggest this is the case for too many young women.  Should we somehow disallow such pregnancies (as if we could)?   This is where I will make my usual turn: What would Confucius say?

     First the obvious caveats.  In his own time, Confucius obviously assumed a traditional household division of labor (with perhaps a couple of concubines thrown into the mix).  Child rearing was assumed to be women's work, and husbands were supposed to provide material support and moral guidance to the family.  But that was then.  This is now.  What might a modern Confucian perspective be on single parenthood?

      The first Confucian question would be: why are you having this child?  If it is simply a matter of "being cool," then she should be dissuaded, as much as that is possible.  Some number of young mothers and fathers may see a child as a status symbol, as something that marks their own significance and importance in the community.  Those, a Confucian would say, are bad reasons to have a child.  We should have children in order to create a new web of loving relationships through which we define our duties, which we then carry out conscientiously (i.e. through "ritual"), as a means to realize humanity in the world.  It is a social-moral thing, not a personal-status thing.

     I imagine few young people actually think in those terms.  I didn't when I was contemplating our children.  And that, Confucians would argue, is a broader failure of society and elders.  Young people need to be taught, they need to be educated on matters of humanity and duty and ritual.  Their parents should be doing that, fathers as well as mothers; and, as Mencius reminds us, so should the public schools.  That may seem an old-fashioned and, perhaps outmoded idea (moral education in public schools) but that is what Confucius would say.

      Now, if a young woman was truly thinking of having a child in order to expand humanity in the world, then a Confucian would not necessarily stop her.  Again, it might be ideal to have two parents, of whatever genders, but the main thing would be the commitment to and actual performance of the duties of motherhood.  If she can provide the love and attention and care the child needed, then there is no substantive reason to criticize her. 

      In the end, then, a Confucian might answer "maybe not," if asked "do children need fathers?" 

Breaking News: Mencius Right, Legalists Wrong

     Nothing like some current psycho-social scientific research (hat tip: Zhongnanhai) to verify claims that have been around for a couple of thousand years:

Common game theory has held that punishment makes two equals cooperate. But when people compete in repeated games, punishment fails to deliver, said study author Martin Nowak. He is director of the evolutionary dynamics lab at Harvard where the study was conducted.

"On the individual level, we find that those who use punishments are the losers," Nowak said his experiments found.

Those who escalate the conflict very often wound up doomed.

"It's a very positive message," said study co-author David Rand, a Harvard biology graduate student researcher. "In general, the thing that is most, sort of, rational and best for your own self-interest is to be nice."

     Sounds Mencian to me.  We all have a heart that cannot bear to see others suffer and when we act with compassion and humanity toward others we not only fulfill out internal appetite to enact our duties but we also contribute to the creation of a better society.  It is not only right to be humane, but it is also efficacious.  The contrary, dreary Legalist emphasis on "clear laws and strict punishments" fails.

     There is, however, one caveat:

The study looked at games between equals. Punishment does seem to have a place in games when one player is dominant and needs to enforce submission, Nowak said.

    To get a better sense of this, let's go to the recent Nature article:

Dreber et al. conclude that costly punishment is a 'maladaptive' behaviour in social-dilemma situations — one that is fundamentally counterproductive, because it pays off neither for the punisher nor for the group. Thus, although it frequently induces cooperation, it can't have evolved for inducing cooperation. Not even the cooperation-enhancing effect appears consistently in social-dilemma games. In some societies, not only free-loaders but also high contributors are punished, which dampens and sometimes even removes the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment⁸.

Dreber et al. argue that punishment has evolved for another purpose, such as coercing individuals into submission, or establishing dominance hierarchies. But the fact remains that, given the choice, players of social-dilemma games have been shown to prefer an environment where punishment is possible. That preference pays off when participants, punishers as well as non-punishers, enter this environment after the initial period of high punishment is over and cooperation dominates⁴.

   This suggests that, in the early phases of social interactions, where each side is looking to dominate or gain significant advantage over the other, punishment may play a role.  But punishment does not, over time, contribute to social cooperation. The persistence of punishment thus may signal an obsession with "maladaptive" domination and an ignorance of how to build social cooperation.  As the Nature article puts it:

Thus, it would seem, winners don't punish; and punishers perish.

 Which has a certain Confucian-aphoristic resonance...

Two Years

    Today is the second anniversary of Aidan's death.  It seems longer.  Time has a way of extending and transforming as the years click by.  I can still see him here with us, but his absence is palpable.  Indeed, as the Tao Te Ching suggests, it is his absence that shapes my presence, that continues to define my life.  Here is a reflection I wrote last year.  Today, I sit at home, looking up at the drizzly gray sky and think about how the past lives through the present.