Once More Into the Breach: The New Legalists and the Tao Te Ching

     One more thing about the New Legalists (am I going on too much about this?  Probably.  But what the hell, it's kind of fun....): they want to enlist the Tao Te Ching in their efforts to construct a neo-traditionalist foundation for current Chinese nationalism.  The post a copy of all 81 passages here - and refer to it as a "Legalist classic."  And that raises this question: to what extent can Taoism be used to justify or legitimate nationalist political projects? 

     Not much.

     I know that Han Fei Tzu, in the early chapters of his book, used Taoism to create an image of the supreme ruler as "doing  nothing," remaining silent and aloof from immediate political affairs.  But that is just an image that screens the ruler's ruthless use of force to protect his position and prerogatives.  It is an un-Taoist appropriation of Taoism.  The historical fact of a Legalist-Taoist synthesis, therefore, should not be taken as a genuine philosophical affinity between the two.  The Legalists forced the two together; Taoists let it happen because they just don't play the same political game as the Legalists.  Maybe that tells us something about the vulnerability of Taoism to misuse by others, but it certainly does not suggest that Taoism inherently tends in a power-political direction.  It does not.

     And Taoism does not lead in the direction of nationalism, either.  Contemporary Chinese nationalists are very much concerned with military and economic strength, and are especially desirous of the forceful take-over of Taiwan.  Nationalists are also interested in national unity within China proper, which Legalists would have them secure through "clear laws and strict punishments."  None of which is consistent with a Taoist world view.

    On laws and punishments, this excerpt from passage 57 of the Tao Te Ching clearly pushes against Legalist-nationalism:

The more prohibitions rule all beneath heaven
the deeper poverty grows among people.
The more shrewd leaders there are
the faster dark confusion fill the nation.
The more cleverness people learn
the faster strange things happen.
The faster laws and decrees are issued
the more bandits and thieves appear.

     Laws and decrees and prohibitions, the sinews of the bureaucratic authoritarian state, are, for Taoists, the problem, not the answer.

     On military power, the Tao Te Ching rather famously urges the avoidance of war and coercion (passage 31):

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

The noble-minde 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....

    The text never says we should give up weapons altogether.  But its view of war is clearly suggests defense and not offense.  Thus, it might be justifiable to fight back if attacked, "when there's no other way."  But to launch an attack, say across the Taiwan Strait, would be seen, by Taoists, as unacceptable offensive action.

     Indeed, the Tao Te Ching suggests a long-term peaceful path to eventual accommodation between Taiwan and China (passage 61):

A great nation that puts itself below a small nation
takes over the small nation,
and a small nation that puts itself below a great nation
gives itself over to the great nation.

    Although Taiwan nationalists would be very uneasy with this prospect, from the PRC point of view it suggests that renouncing the use of force, and thus putting China "below" Taiwan, will serve longer term Chinese interests.  Is that what the New Legalists have in mind?  I suspect not, given the more militant tendencies of popular Chinese nationalism of the past twenty years or so.

     Indeed, Taoists would reject any claims of national necessity to territory or wealth or power.  None of that really matters, as passage 80 suggests.  Let me quote it in its entirety again:

Let nations grow smaller and smaller
and the people fewer and fewer,

let weapons become rare
and superfluous,
let people feel death's gravity again
and never wander far from home.
Then boat and carriage will sit unused
and shield and sword lie unnoticed.

Let people knot ropes for notation again
and never need anything more,

let them find pleasure in their food
and beauty in their clothes,
peace in their homes
and joy in their ancestral ways.

Then people in neighboring nations will look across to each other,
their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,

and yet they'll grow old and die
without bothering to exchange visits.

 Hard to see how that aligns with any expression of modern nationalism.

      In the end, the New Legalists really have no basis for their nationalist project - and I am reading them as nationalists.  Han Fei Tzu doesn't really work for their purposes (as suggested below) nor does Taoism.  That doesn't leave much, except poorly misconstrued historical assertions. 

      But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they aren't nationalists.  But I'll believe that only when they run an article that shows how, by the standards of both Taoism and Legalism, Taiwan is really not all that important to the well-being and future of China.

Comments

[isha]

"Taiwan is really not all that important to the well-being and future of China" ... is that the reason why U.S. was still sending aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Strait?

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29439533

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/12/01/2003390613

Is that the same reason why U.S. is selling big items weapons to Taiwan and even forcing the unwilling Taiwan legislatures to pass the bill to pay the large ticket?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30957.pdf

Another Taoist theme: Words is futile, especially the beautifually phased ones.

Isha

[Friend of New Legalism]

Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane, Part III: TRADITIONAL CHINESE CULTURE: AN ORGANIC WHOLE
http://www.xinfajia.net/content/eview/6591.page