The months-long protests and demonstrations in Hong Kong have devolved into uncompromising police repression, sporadic protester violence, and a general sense of urban insurrection. It is difficult to see any good outcome. We can just hope that, when the tumult has subsided, Hong Kong is able to retain a fair portion of the rights and freedoms that make it a unique place.
Some protesters have, in recent weeks, been responsible for some truly grisly acts of violence. Perhaps the saddest case is that of the 70 year old man who was killed when he was hit in the head by a brick thrown by a protester. A horrible and inhumane attack.
Although this case, and protester violence in general, has sparked a range of commentary, one question has yet to be asked: What would Mencius say? What would he say about violence and the general situation now in Hong Kong.
First off, he would condemn the killing and harming of innocent people. Indeed, he states this twice in the book that bears his name.
In chapter 2A2 (Gong Sun Chou I), when he is describing how two sages are morally accomplished in a manner that approaches Confucius, he states that neither they nor Confucius "would have performed one act that was not right or killed an innocent person in order to possess all-under-Heaven" (Bloom translation)
This injunction is repeated in 7A33 (Jin Xin I) when Mencius is describing the character of a scholar (士), which we can take in this case as a person who is learning how to live a morally good life: "Being committed to humaneness and rightness, that is all. To put one innocent person to death contravenes humaneness. To take what is not one's own contravenes rightness." (Bloom).
Although these statements apply to officials and scholars, not common people, we can assume that Mencius believes that violence against innocents should be condemned regardless of who commits the crime.
But for Mencius people in positions of power have a particular responsibility when social and economic conditions deteriorate. He generally understands political leadership as bearing a special duty to ensure that people have a "constant means of livelihood," (恆產) because he understands that crime, and by extension certain sorts of violence, are rooted in a failure of political leadership to ensure a "constant means of livelihood." Here are two examples:
1A7 (Liang Hui Wang I): "The people, lacking a constant means of livelihood, will lack constant minds, and when they lack constant minds there is no dissoluteness, depravity, deviance, or excess to which they will not succumb. If, once they have sunk into crime, one responds by subjecting them to punishment - this is to entrap the people." (Bloom).
6A2 (Gaozi I): "The goodness of human nature is like the downward course of water. There is no human being lacking in the tendency to do good, just as there is no water lacking in the tendency to flow downward. Now, by striking the water and splashing it, you may cause it to go over your head, and by damming and channeling it, you can force it to flow uphill. But is this the nature of water? It is force that makes this happen. While people can be made to do what is not good, what happens to their nature is like this." (Bloom)."
For Mencius, abhorrent actions are contrary to the basic goodness of human nature. When violence occurs we should take a stand against it but we should also seek the deeper political reasons for its ignition. Material conditions are an important but not exclusive catalyst. If people are in desperate circumstances, if they do not have a "constant means of livelihood," they will be susceptible to act violently. This has some application to Hong Kong, where young people feel they have been shut out of the city's prosperity. But it is not just about having a secure material life. Notice in 1A7, Mencius tells us why material comforts are necessary: "Therefore an intelligent ruler will regulate the livelihood of the people, so as to make sure that, for those above them, they shall have sufficient wherewith to serve their parents, and, for those below them, sufficient wherewith to support their wives and children..." (Legge translation). People need material resources so they can take care of their families in a dignified manner. What matters here is moral dignity.
That is the link to 6A2. Circumstances can impel a person to immoral acts but that kind of coercion, that "damming and channeling," runs contrary to basic human dignity, the inherent human impulse to do the right thing.
If we notice the timeline of protest in Hong Kong it is clear that the movement started out peacefully. Most symbolically significant was the march on June 16th, when approximately two million people took to the streets in an extraordinary show of peaceful dissent. But the "damming and channeling" of the Hong Kong government, the attempt to impose a massively unpopular law and the continued intransigence in the face of overwhelming public opinion, has thwarted Hong Kong people's impulse to protest peacefully. They have been pushed toward violence by the violence they have faced. Yes, perhaps they should not succumb to their baser instincts, but for them now it is a matter of dignity, a struggle to maintain a society where they can care for their families and themselves in a dignified manner, not dominated by an external power beyond their control that impairs their material well being and their moral sensibilities.
What's happening in Hong Kong now is what Mencius tells us in 1A7: the government, both in locally and in Beijing, has created conditions through which Hong Kongers have been entrapped. In defending their dignity, they face brutality and arrest and incarceration. The violence produced under these circumstances demonstrates the inhumanity of the current political leadership.
Comments