Wow... it's been two weeks since my last post. The blog silence is due to summer torpor (rather hot here...) and some other writing distractions (projects past due but now done - hooray!) One of those diversions is an encyclopedia entry, for Berkshire Publishing, on the ancient thinker, Mozi.
They asked me to do this at the end of last year and I sent it in last week, one day before it was formally due. It is for a biographical encyclopedia and by the time they asked me to contribute other of the iconic classical figures - Confucius, "Laozi," Mencius - were already assigned. I liked the idea of doing Mozi, since I know him and his work less well - this was an opportunity to dig more deeply into his thought. And that was made all the more possible with Ian Johnston's magisterial new translation of Mozi.
In any event, one idea that came to mind when thinking Mohist thoughts was the conception of the political. Mozi begins his political theory (which is very well summarized by Chris Fraser, here) with a state of nature argument: before humanly created structures and processes of government, people tended to pursue diverse and contradictory notions of the good that yielded a violent disorder. Here is an excerpt from Johnston's translation:
Master Mo Zi spoke, saying: “Ancient times, when people first came into being, were times when there were as yet no laws or government, so it was said that people had differing principles. This meant that, if there was one person, there was one principle; if there were two people, there were two principles; and if there were ten people, there were ten principles. The more people there were , the more things there were that were spoken of as principles. This was a case of people affirming their own principles and condemning those of other people. The consequence of this was mutual condemnation. In this way, within a household, father and sons, and older and younger brothers were resentful and hostile, separated and dispersed, and unable to reach agreement and accord with each other. Throughout the world, people all used water and fire, and poisons and potions to injure and harm one another. As a result, those with strength to spare did not use it to help each other in their work, surplus goods rotted and decayed and were not used for mutual distribution, and good doctrines were hidden and obscured and not used for mutual teaching. So the world was in a state of disorder comparable to that amongst the birds and beasts. (91)
This is not just an image of a miserable past but also a vision of a possible future. Rather like Hobbes, Mozi uses the fear of a violent state of nature as justification for a highly centralized, hierarchic, sovereign political structure headed by a wise ruler - a Son of Heaven - who will enforce doctrinal uniformity through judicious use of material incentives and punishments. Diversity of opinion and/or interest are, for Mozi, the underlying cause of political disorder and, therefore, must repressed. Thus, terms like "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" are often used to describe Mohist politics.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? When we look for the historical roots of contemporary PRC authoritarianism, we often make rather facile assertions about "Confucianism" - facile because they commonly are based on a rather narrow understanding of classical Confucian thought and typically ignore the political effects of the twentieth century. We further assume that since Mohism was eclipsed in the post-Qin period, it has nothing to say about imperial or contemporary Chinese experience. But it may be the case, as Fraser suggests, that Mozi's authoritarian tendencies were absorbed by Xunzi and Han Feizi and in that way became a part of the unquestioned assumptions of Chinese statecraft. Politically, Mao may have been as much of a Mohist as a Legalist - indeed, to the extent that Legalists care little for ideological uniformity (for them, as long as a person obeys the law, their political beliefs hardly matter), Mao may have been more of a Mohist.
But I digress....
The thought that came to mind about Mohist politics is that it is not really a politics, but a denial of politics. Ultimately, politics is about difference, about managing conflicting interests and ideas. While unity of thought and purpose might sound like a nice idea, at least insofar as avoiding more violent and inefficient conflict, it is largely fictitious. Unanimity is, at best, momentary and fleeting. Difference is durable and unavoidable. Consensus never lasts. Thus, a political theory that simply asserts that a wise ruler should impose unity is not really a political theory because it avoids the key political question of how difference is managed. In the case of Mozi, it is even worse. He tells us nothing about how the "wise leader" will be selected, nor how, beyound a vague invocation of the "will of heaven" a wise-leader-gone-bad will be removed from power. The political thinking here seem to be: we'll find a good guy and he'll impose unity and order....
In the meantime, class divisions, social and cultural differences, regional and geograpchic tensions, all the fragmentations and oppositions that define politics everywhere are simply assumed away. A denial of politics, which results in the rationalization of the powers that be....
"Ultimately, politics is about difference, about managing conflicting interests and ideas."
Sounds like a pretty modern construct to me. Surely the idea was to exorcise disorder and impose order and harmony on society. The chaos of a free-for-all society is taken as given. The cure is not to 'manage conflicting interests' (which sounds really boring and tedious, and could lead to the wrong result anyway) but to impose an ideal uniformity. Might not be about 'politics', but does wonders for society!
Posted by: Bathrobe | August 01, 2011 at 08:03 AM