The Useless Tree

Mencius Says: Donald Trump is Inhumane and Should Not Be President

When faced with challenging circumstances I turn to ancient Chinese philosophy in search of answers. And when the issue is a matter of political leadership I often find myself thinking: what would Mencius say? And so, here are some thoughts on the prospect of Donald Trump as President of the United States from a Mencian point of view.

It is fairly safe to say that Mencius would consider Trump unfit for any sort of exemplary leadership position. Quite simply, Trump sets a bad example. To start, his career as an aggressive, selfish, profit-seeking wheeler-dealer is a problem for Mencius.  Let's go to the text:

Yang Hu once said: "One who would be wealthy will not be humane; one who is humane would not be wealthy"  [為富不仁矣，為仁不富矣]

This is perfectly in keeping with one of the main themes of the text: how the pursuit of profit destroys moral character.  The very first passage of Mencius has him upbraiding a king: "Why must you use that word - "profit?""  And he expands upon the problem in passage 6B4, where he points out that invoking profit as a motive, even for a good cause like stopping a war, inevitably corrodes human relationships:

If you, starting from the point of profit, offer your persuasive counsels to the kings of Qin and Chu, and if those kings are pleased with the consideration of profit so as to stop the movements of their armies, then all belonging to those armies will rejoice in the cessation of war, and find their pleasure in the pursuit of profit. Ministers will serve their sovereign for the profit of which they cherish the thought; sons will serve their fathers, and younger brothers will serve their elder brothers, from the same consideration - and the issue will be, that, abandoning benevolence and righteousness, sovereign and minister, father and son, younger brother and elder, will carry on all their intercourse with this thought of profit cherished in their breasts. But never has there been such a state of society, without ruin being the result of it.

A person obsessed with profit-making will likely be a base and immoral person, unable to to understand more fundamental human qualities such as commiseration and humaneness and reciprocity.  In this, Mencius is very much following his forerunner, Confucius.  Remember Analects 4.12:

The Master said: "If profit guides your actions, there will be no end of resentment." 子曰：「放於利而行，多怨。」

This is not to say that all business people are, ipso facto, resentful and inhumane persons.  Rather, if one is engaged in profit-seeking he or she must be ever vigilant in resisting the morally bad tendencies inherent in profit-seeking. A business person must work especially hard to fulfill the key Confucian virtues of humaneness (ren) and uprightness (yi).

Needless to say, Trump fails in this regard. There is no one in the public eye more crass and greedy and insensitive than Trump.  He does not temper profit-seeking with conscientious care of others.  Shallow and garish and narcissistic materialism is his very brand. Thus, from a Confucian point of view he is inhumane - bu ren - 不仁.

For Mencius, it is imperative to confront inhumane leaders. In his own time, the Warring States period of Chinese history, it was all too common for kings to be swept up in egotistical pursuits.  And Mencius never shied from speaking truth to power and telling them they should get right with Confucian morality or give up their political power. The stakes were high (4A1):

Therefore only the humane should be in high positions. When one lacking in humaneness occupies a high position, his wickedness spreads to everyone. (Bloom translation) -  是以惟仁者宜在高位。不仁而在高位，是播其惡於眾也

It should be noted that all is not lost. While it is certainly bad to have an inhumane individual in a position of power, right-minded people can work to counteract his malign effect through constant public critique, which is what we will do.

Trump supporters might want to argue that we should not take his campaign rhetoric seriously: he was only doing what most politicians do in fighting to win office. But Trump is different. He has taken lying and deception and untruth to new levels, unseen before.  And, for Mencius, that matters, as suggested by Bloom's translation of 4A22:

Mencius said: "A person who makes light with his words is not qualified to assume responsibility."

Trump should not assume responsibility because he is, quite clearly, irresponsible and inhumane. Were he a conscientious and well-meaning person he would recognize his own flaws and step away from office.  But he won't; so, we will have to be like Mencius and continuously call out his inhumanity.

 

The US Supreme Court does the Mencian thing

As everyone knows by now, the US Supreme Court voted today to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), thus allowing to stand President Obama's signature legislative action on health insurance.  In doing so, the Court also, unintentionally I suspect, ratified a Mencian approach to public policy.

A modern application of Mencius would support ACA.  A key point in the Mencian perspective, which is largely absent in the US debate on the issue, is that by extending health insurance to everyone, ACA facilitates the fulfillment of filial duty: sons and daughters can care for their parents more effectively.  How terrible is it for a child to face a parent's illness or incapacitation and not be able to secure necessary medical care!  Moreover, as Confucius suggests, children have a duty to maintain their own health so that parents will not worry abou them (Legge translation):

    Meng Wu asked what filial piety was. The Master said, "Parents are anxious lest     their children should be sick." (2.6)

    孟武伯問孝。子曰：「父母唯其疾之憂。」

There is, of course, much that is beyond our immediate control when it comes to health, and Confucius here is not blaming the victim, as it were, if some a medical misfortune occurs.  But we should take reasonable steps to avoid medical problems that might bring anxiety to our parents.  Widely available health insurance, which makes it easier to seek early treatment, does that.

And Mencius would understand health insurance as a government responsibility, to the extent that it creates social conditions conducive for the broadest possible realization of Humanity. In speaking with a bad king, who is ignoring the livelihood and health of the people, Menicus says (Bloom translation):

At present, the regulation of the people's livelihood is such that, above, they do not have enough to serve their parents and, below, they do not have enough to support their wives and children.  Even in years of prosperity their lives are bitter, while in years of dearth they are unable to escape starvation. Under these circumstances they only try to save themselves from death, fearful that they will not succeed.  How could they spare the time for the practice of rites and rightness? (1A7)

There is a correlation between wealth and access to health care.  The poor, if they fall ill and cannot secure the care they need, quite clearly have more difficulty in sparing "the time for the practice of rites and rightness."  It is harder for them to do the right thing.  And it is the king's - and by modern extension, government's - responsibility to make sure the "people's livelihood" is such that filial and social duties can be performed with the dignity they deserve.  All persons should be provided with certain minimal material conditions, as Mencius suggests here (Bloom translation):

Mencius said, "In years of abundance, most of the young people have the wherewithal to be good, while in years of adversity, most of them become violent.  This is not a matter of a difference in the native capacities sent down by Heaven but rather what overwhelms their minds.

"Now, let barley be sown and covered with earth; the ground being the same, and the time of planting also the same, it grows rapidly, and in due course of time, it all ripens.  Though there may be differences in the yield, this is because the fertility of the soil, the nourishment of the rain and the dew, and the human effort invested are not the same.

"Thing of the same kind are thus like one another.  Why is it that we should doubt this only when it comes to human beings?....."

We all start out, according to Mencius, with the same inherent moral capacity, the ability to do right in the world.  When people fail to do right, it is not because of some innate character flaw.  Rather, the environment surrounding them was not conducive to right action.  If each person receives the care they need, if the human effort invested in their growth and development is sufficient, then we can expect the best possible social outcomes. 

Not having access to medical care, for oneself or for a loved one, can clearly "overwhelm the mind" of otherwise good people.  Thus, there a general social duty, best enacted by government, to create conditions that ease the medical burden for as many people as possible.

Therefore, when contemplating the whole health care mess in the US, remember what Mencius says: think about the barley.

The Mencian Critique of the Terracotta Warriors

Word comes of a new excavation of even more terracotta warriors and figures at the massive burial site of the first Qin Emperor.  But whenever I think of Qin and his subterranean army, Mencius comes to mind.  And Mencius gives us reason to resist the hoopla and see Qin's megalomaniacal effort to militarily dominate the after-life for what it truly is: inhumane.

In the first chapter (1A4) of the book that bears his name, Mencius gives us this insight:

Mencius said, "In your kitchen, there is fat meat, and in your stables fat horses.  Yes the people have a hungry look, and out beyond, in the more wild regions, lie the bodies of those who have died of starvation.  This is to lead animals to devour people.  Now, animal devour one another, and people hate this about them.  If one governs as father and mother of the people and yet is not deterred from leading animals to devour people, in what sense is he father and mother of the people?  Confucius said: 'the one who first made grave figures - was he not without posterity?  This was because he made human images for such a use.  How then should it be with one who causes his people to die of starvation?'"

曰：「庖有肥肉，廐有肥馬，民有飢色，野有餓莩，此率獸而食人也。獸相食，且人惡之。為民父母，行政不免於率獸而食人。惡在其為民父母也？仲尼曰：『始作俑者，其無後乎！』為其象人而用之也。如之何其使斯民飢而死也？」

First, the image of animals devouring people is powerful.  It is directed at King Hui of Liang, and it underscores the inhumane effects of his rule.  He maintains a lavish stable of animals, and eats only the best meat, while people in the countryside starve.  His animals eat better than some people; thus, in effect he is feeding people to animals.  Disturbing...

But I want to highlight the last few sentences about grave figures - 俑者.  In Menicus's day, such figures were made of wood and they symbolized servants and others who would provide for the deceased when he or she passed into the after-life.  In some ways, wooden or, later, terracotta or ceramic tomb figures were an improvement over the earlier Shang practice of burying servants alive with a master.  But, even without that horror, Mencius is not down with tomb figures.

Making the comment (in the form of a rhetorical question) that those who invented (and by extension, continue to use) tomb figures are without posterity, Mencius is, in effect, saying that the practice is a self-indulgent distraction.  One who worries about who will serve him in the next life is not paying sufficient attention to performing Humanity toward others in this life.  Remember Confucius tells us (Analects 11.12) that attending to our responsibilities in this life should take precedence over thinking about what happens upon death:

When Adept Lu asked about serving ghosts and spirits, the Master said: "You haven't learned to serve the living, so how could you serve ghosts?"

"Might I ask about death?"

"You don't understand life," the Master replied, "so how could you understand death?"

季路問事鬼神。子曰：「未能事人，焉能事鬼？」敢問死。曰：「未知生，焉知死？」

Much the same could be said about Qin Shihuangdi.  He forced society to serve his desire for immortality, and his repression became the horrible standard of inhumanity for Confucians ever since.  And he took the production of tomb figures to an entirely different, insanely obsessive, level.  In effect, he led the terracotta figures to devour people.

Whenever we see Qin's vast fields of terracotta figures, we should understand it as a supreme example of un-Confucian and inhuame behavior.

Stand with Chen Guangcheng

Chen Guangcheng, the courageous human rights lawyer in China, who has been subjected to brutal "house arrest" for years, has escaped his captors and is apparently in hiding, perhaps in the US embassy, in Beijing.  Here's what I blogged five and a half years ago:

  Chen Guangcheng believes in the rule of law.  He believes that the law should apply equally to everyone.   He believes that government officials who break the law should be held accountable.  He is performing a civic duty precisely in line with the Communique of the Sixth Plenum [of the 16th Central Committee].  But he has been arrested and brutalized.  His tormentors have made a mockery of the very idea of the rule of law.  And until President Hu Jintao finds the political courage to allow the law to develop in a truly equal and just manner, until he accepts that idea that honest people like Chen Guangcheng have a right and a duty to demand that the law apply to everyone equally, including Communist Party officials, until then the words of the Communique are empty.

Hu Jintao has not had the political courage to do the right thing for all these years.  Nor has Wen Jiabao.  Indeed, Chen, in the midst of his escape, has put out a video directly asking Wen for justice:

 

Let's hope that the Party Center let's him go free.  I fear, however, that that will not be the outcome.  

 In a way, this is a test of whether the Center is willing to embrace something like a Confucian ethic.  I see Chen as a genuinely Mencius-like figure.  He stands consistently for fairness and justice for the powerless, and he is willing to speak up to the powers that be, demanding redress for legal and economic inequality.  And his righteousness is obvious to all who know him. Clearly, the right thing to do is free him from the brutal, illegal, deeply inhumane assaults he has suffered for so long.

But I am afraid the Center will show itself to be the bastion of hard-line Legalism that it has always been.  They will interpret Chen as a challenge to their power and they will find a way to crush him.  Or if they exile him, they will punish those who have supported him.

All we can do is stand in witness and call for justice:

Free Chen Guangcheng!

When "Confucianism" isn't really Confucianism

Alistair J. Nicholas, an expatriate pr exec in Beijing, pens a piece in the China Daily that reflects upon cultural differences between China and the West, especially in corporate workplaces.  There are some useful insights into how to get things done and not make a fool of yourself.  But from the very first paragraph he falls into the unfortunate practice of using the term "Confucianism" as a stand-in for contemporary Chinese culture:

The hierarchical nature of Chinese society and the role of hierarchy in the realm of modern social structures defy explanation to Westerners who come from more egalitarian societies. Even after 12 years of living in China, I am confounded by the continuance of this most Confucian inheritance of China's past.

This is a airly typical statement, hearkening back to the Gellner quote above: Confucianism, in practice (and I want to stress that here: what was practiced as "Confucianism" diverged from certain ethical expectations of "Confucianism"...) authorized hierarchical social and political relationships.  So far nothing out of the ordinary here.

But problems set in when we get statements like this:

Of course, there is a downside to China's strict hierarchical structures in business: namely, that merit may be overlooked - or expected to be overlooked - in the rise to the top of the pyramid.

Confucianism, of course, envisions a meritocracy of sorts, an ethical meritocracy: the morally superior should rule and lead.  And we know who the morally superior are not because of what school they went to or who their daddy is but by their actual performance of right actions.  Moral achievement is not existential, it is performative.  Thus, if hierarchy is obstructing meritocracy that is a sign of the failure of Confucianism, not its consequence.  

Of course, we could argue that Confucianism is still culpable because, in the first instance it authorized hierarchy, which then goes on, in an un-Confucian way, to obstruct meritocracy.  But this strikes me as an unfair critique.  Confucianism stands against unmeritorious hierarchy: this is very much the life's work of Mencius...

Another problem emerges with this statement:

But Chinese hierarchy can result in other unfavorable outcomes if not fully understood. For example, Chinese are reluctant to question or challenge their superiors because they have been brought up to respect their elders and others in authority.

While respect for elders is certainly a Confucian idea, it is not unqualified. If elders and/or superiors are doing the wrong thing, children and subordinates should respectfully point out the problem.  While passages from the Analects could be cited here, I like this excerpt from Mencius:

If you don’t resent a parent’s fault when it’s serious, you’re treating parents like strangers.  And if you resent a parent’s fault when it’s slight, you’re treating parents with abandon.  Treating them like strangers, treating them with abandon – either is no way for a child to honor parents. (12.3)

Children, to really honor parents, should treat them as neither strangers nor with abandon.  They should let parents know when there are problems.

In any event, whatever traditional Chinese culture was, or contemporary Chinese culture is, it cannot be simply reduced to "Confucianism," because there are aspects to the culture, old and new, that clearly run against the grain of Confucian morality. 

Chinese culture has always been more than "Confucianism."

The Pursuit of Happiness

An op-ed in the English edition of the Global Times today asks: Are Chinese people truly miserable? It opens:

"Misery" is a regular word today. From emotions reflected in the media and online, the Chinese sense of misery is increasing while happiness seems to be dwindling. Here are two questions: Firstly, is the sense of misery in Chinese society beyond normal? Secondly, what can the government and society at large do to stop this?

The conclusion is often that most Chinese people feel more miserable than before. As various conflicts break out, the public faces more social evils than before and have more ways to express their distress. Consequently the impression of their lifestyle is badly affected and negative assessments on society are flocking in.

But it is not proper to say the Chinese sense of misery has become unbearable. According to several surveys, Chinese are rather optimistic in their worldview. China is not an angry country or on the cusp of revolution.

I imagine they need to put in that last line about no revolutions to distinguish their argument from the upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East, which are continuing apace.  Beyond that, this piece seems to be a fairly standard reflection on the social and cultural disruptions caused by rapid modernization.  Misery sets in when individuals cannot find a job in the new economy, a place in the new society, or meaning in the new culture.  That misery might be offset by the discovery of new possibilities and an openness to change.  But these sentiments are by no means particular to China.

In raising the "what is to be done?" question, however, the author moves in a decidedly Mencian direction:

However, the government should bear the burden to reduce public misery, bringing dreams and hopes to society and encourage people to move in the right direction. Chinese people should believe that a better life awaits them and that the next generation will embrace a brighter future. People should also be confident in a more democratic and fairer society with less corruption.

Mencius, writing in a time of bewildering change and turmoil, had his own vision of what the government should provide to ensure secure and happy lives for the common people:

.....Let mulberry trees be planted about the homesteads with their five mu, and persons of fifty years may be clothed with silk. In keeping fowls, pigs, dogs, and swine, let not their times of breeding be neglected, and persons of seventy years may eat flesh. Let there not be taken away the time that is proper for the cultivation of the farm with its hundred mu, and the family of several mouths that is supported by it shall not suffer from hunger. Let careful attention be paid to education in schools, inculcating in it especially the filial and fraternal duties, and grey-haired men will not be seen upon the roads, carrying burdens on their backs or on their heads. It never has been that the ruler of a State, where such results were seen - persons of seventy wearing silk and eating flesh, and the black-haired people suffering neither from hunger nor cold - did not attain to the royal dignity.'

Not quite sure how that would translate into contemporary material conditions.  But notice how the op-ed calls for "...a more democratic and fairer society with less corruption."  More democracy!  This is not as surprising as it may seem at first.  The CCP has always contended that the political system it manages is a kind of democracy: a "socialist democracy."  So, there's no real contradiction here between the author and the official ideology, at least not on the surface.

Of course, if the author wants to press for a multi-party, liberal, electoral democracy, well, then, Party censors are standing by to keep those ideas from gaining too much traction in society.

But if the pursuit of happiness that is the goal here, it would seem that a critical apsect of happiness is missing: the individual.  Different persons will calculate happiness in different ways, depending on their circumstances and personalities.  The government, or society, as a whole, cannot provide it for them.  Certain material conditions and social opportunities can be made available, and these might increase the likelihood of happiness for a greater number of people.  But individuals need to have the freedom as well as the wherewithal to create their own happiness. 

That is not a feature of "socialist democracy," but it does have some grounding in ancient Chinese thought, especially Zhuangzi.   As I have mentioned on other occasions, Burton Watson, translator of many ancity texts, including Zhuangzi, understands freedom to be the central theme of Zhuangzi.

And the link between freedom and happiness might best be captured by this passage (Hinton, p. 41):

A marsh pheasant has to walk ten paces for a bite to each and a hundred for a sip of water.  But still wouldn't want to be tamed and put in a cage.  Even treated like a king, it could never be happy and content.

澤雉十步一啄，百步一飲，不蘄畜乎樊中。神雖王，不善也

But that might be too politically incorrect, in the context of CCP power, for op-ed writers at the Global Times...

Mencius in Libya

The rather gruesome public death of Muammar el-Qaddafi, dictator of Libya, has caused some upset in more comfortable political quarters.  And this was the topic of a historically well-informed op-ed in today's NYT by Simon Sebag Montefiore.  He draws comparisons, some fairly grisly, to the fall of other infamous tyrants.  And he suggests that the public killing of a despot might yield a productive political catharsis:

Only death can end both the spell to bewitch and the prerogative to dominate — and sometimes, not even death can snuff out power. “The terror inspired by Caligula’s reign,” wrote Suetonius, “could be judged by the sequel.” Romans were so terrified of the emperor that it was not enough to assassinate him. They wanted to see him dead: fearing it was a trick and lacking cellphone footage, they had to be convinced. The mile-long line of Libyans who were keen to see Colonel Qaddafi’s cadaver in its shop-refrigerator-tomb would understand this perfectly.

It seems that the unjust ruler can sometimes (not always, unfortunately) bring about his own demise.  The bloodier and more capricious his rule, the more terrible the popular reaction, if the people get a chance to respond.  This bring Mencius to mind.  When asked if regicide is legitimate, in 1B.8, he answers (Bloom translation):

One who offends against humaneness is called a brigand; one who offends against rightness is called an outlaw.  Someone who is a brigand and an outlaw is a mere fellow.  I have heard of the punishment of mere fellow Zhou but never the slaying of a ruler.

"Zhou" here is the infamous King Zhou, the final ruler of the Shang dynasty.  He is often referred to as "Tyrant Zhou," one of the great villains of Chinese history, righteously overthrown by virtuous King Wu (things get a bit complicated, King Wu was from a state called "Zhou," a different Chinese character than "Zhou" of King Zhou...).  Mencius is thus saying that evil King Zhou was so bad - a "brigand and an outlaw" - that he had lost the moral authority of rulership.  He was not worthy of any protection from regicide, because he was not a true king.  His violent demise, at the hands of King Wu, was justified as a sort of rectification of names.  That is, if he was not living up to the norms implied by the title "king" he should not be given that title nor the political status and prerogatives that are associated with the title.

Mencius is generally against killing as a means of government.  But in this instance the violent downfall of a tyrant was acceptable.  The bad guy brought it on himself for being so bad for so long.  The people could no longer tolerate the injustice and they struck out against him.

This does not necessarily imply a generalized "right to rebellion" in Menicus.  Nor does it necessarily mean that the "people" are the legitimate agents of this kind of political change.  In 5B.9 he tells us that it is ministers from royal families who have the moral standing to remove bad rulers. 

But 1B.8 reflects a kind of resignation. If tyrants face the people's wrath and die violent deaths, we should not mourn them as fallen kings.  Rather, we should look forward and ask: who will bring humane government to a traumatized land?

Mencius would not feel sorry for Qaddafi.

Thinking of Yueyue and obligations to strangers

The sad story of Wang Yue, widely known as Yueyue - a two-year old girl in Foshan run over by a van, and even run over a second time by another vehicle, and then left to die while uncaring passersby ignored her - has swept across the internet in the past week.  One of the most pointed responses I have seen is the reflection by writer Lijia Zhang.  In trying to understand the tragedy, she writes:

The fundamental problem, in my view, lies in one word that describes a state of mind: shaoguanxianshi, meaning don't get involved if it's not your business. In our culture, there's a lack of willingness to show compassion to strangers. We are brought up to show kindness to people in our network of guanxi, family and friends and business associates, but not particularly to strangers, especially if such kindness may potentially damage your interest.

There is some truth in this.  Guanxi is a powerful thing.  But I want to preempt (and maybe I'm too late for preemption, so this will have to be a kind of resistance..) the lurking assumption that Confucianism is somehow to blame here. 

Now it is true that Confucianism produces a sort of ethical particularism.  Certain obligations are more important than others.  If there is ever a conflict of duties between, say, taking care of our parents and helping others, our family obligations should come first.  Indeed, if there is an apparent conflict between our family obligations and the law, Confucius famously suggests that we should protect our families first.  Analects 13.18 gives us this:

The Governor of She in conversation with Confucius said, "In our village there is someone called 'True Person.'  When his father took a sheep on the sly, he reported him to authorities.

Confucius replied, "Those who are true in my village conduct themselves differently.  A father covers for his son, and a son covers for a father.  And being true lies in this."

Constructing a universal (or universal within the jurisdiction of the state) moral code enforceable by law is thus obstructed by the Confucian call to care for family first.  And this could, when reproduced over time for centuries, engender disregard for obligations we have to strangers.

But we should not stop the consideration of Confucianism there.

In the Analects, Confucius recognizes that, when not confronted with immediate conflicts of obligations, we should treat others as we would want them to treat us.  There is a general sense of moral reciprocity.  Of course, it is stated in negative terms - don't do unto others what you would not want done unto yourself - but the effect is largely the same.  And in the case of Yueyue it would run something like this: don't ignore an injured child in the road because you would not want others to ignore your injured child in the road.  Of the various places in the text where this "golden rule" is expressed, 12.2 might be best in reference to the Yueyue tragedy:

Zhonggong inquired about authoritative conduct (ren).  The Master replied, "In your public life, behave as though you are receiving important visitors; employ the common people as though you are overseeing a great sacrifice.  Do not impose upon others what you yourself do not want, and you will not incur personal or political ill will.

"Though I am not clever," said Zhonggong,  "allow me to act on what you have said.

Notice the "in your public life."  I think this would apply to the passersby in Foshan.  Were they adhering to a Confucian code, they would have helped Yueyue, just as they would help an honored guest who had fallen in their home.

Mencius provides a much fuller justification for obligations to strangers, while maintaining the Confucian understanding that in those cases where obligations clearly conflict, family would come first.  His famous image of a child about to be hurt by falling in a well is painfully apt here.  Here's the Legge translation of 2A6 (Chinese Text Project):

.....When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, having these four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot develop them, they play the thief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannot develop them plays the thief with his prince. Since all men have these four principles in themselves, let them know to give them all their development and completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. Let them have their complete development, and they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas. Let them be denied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.'

Notice the univerality in the claims: not "some men" or "my family" but "all men have a mind [heart] which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others."  And "all men have these four principles in themselves..."  This is the classic statement of the Mencian belief in good human nature.

I read this as prescriptive as much as it is descriptive.  He is telling us, by asserting this description of human nature, that this is how we should be in the world.  We should act to save the child because we have the capacity for good and we need to enact and express that capacity to reach our full potential for humanity.   That the passersby in Foshan failed to do so, shows them to "play the theif with themselves;" they are not doing what they can and should do.

I want to add another passage from Mencius here (thanks to the reading I am doing with my students this week) to underline the idea that we do have an obligation to treat strangers with compassion and respect.  Here is an excerpt from 4B29 (which is #57 in the Chinese Text Project):

Yu and Ji, in an age when the world was being brought back to order, thrice passed their doors without entering them. Confucius praised them. The disciple Yan, in an age of disorder, dwelt in a mean narrow lane, having his single bamboo-cup of rice, and his single gourd-dish of water; other men could not have endured the distress, but he did not allow his joy to be affected by it. Confucius praised him. Mencius said, 'Yu, Ji, and Yan Hui agreed in the principle of their conduct. Yu thought that if any one in the kingdom were drowned, it was as if he drowned him. Ji thought that if any one in the kingdom suffered hunger, it was as if he famished him. It was on this account that they were so earnest. If Yu and Ji, and Yanzi, had exchanged places, each would have done what the other did. Here now in the same apartment with you are people fighting - you ought to part them. Though you part them with your cap simply tied over your unbound hair, your conduct will be allowable. If the fighting be only in the village or neighbourhood, if you go to put an end to it with your cap tied over your hair unbound, you will be in error. Although you should shut your door in such a case, your conduct would be allowable.'

Notice how Yu and Ji, sages worthy of emulation, took the sufferings of others as if they themselves were suffering.  Bloom's translation suggests that when something bad was happening in the world, they felt as if they themselves were perpetrating the bad act.  Either way, the main point is the same: they identified with the suffering of others, the suffering of strangers, and they longed to make it right.  Clearly, had Yu or Ji been in that street in Foshan, they would have rushed to Yueyue's aid.

What happened, in the sad case of Yueyue, was not, then, simply a product of Confucian culture; it was a failure to live up to the moral expectations of Confucian culture.  To my mind the only legitimate Confucian justification for non-action in this case would be if there were clear conflict with family obligations.  And by "clear" I mean something more than the perverse incentives created by contemporary law.  The possibility of some sort of legal entanglements in the future should not have obstructed immediate resopnse in such a dire case.  Or, at least, that is my sense of what Mencius would say here....

Mencius: Now more than ever

Rising socio-economic inequality is a heated topic of discussion in China.  China Digital Times links to several pieces about growing resentment toward the increasingly base and brazen nouveaux riches. This is not a new story.  Economic growth in China has come at the cost of growing inequality.  Suisheng Zhao summarizes the political implications nicely:

China now has one of the most unequal income distributions in the world, with a Gini coefficient of 0.50 in 2009, even higher than the United States, at 0.46. This alarming inequality has come as China has dismantled its social welfare structures, leaving hundreds of millions of people with minimal or no provision of healthcare, unemployment insurance, and other social services. These growing gaps are at the root of social unrest, that threatens political stability, an accepted pre-condition for economic development. Coercive force has been deployed with increasing frequency to suppress popular unrest. This year, the financial cost of ‘maintaining stability’ (维稳) is estimated to have outstripped the size of the defence budget. The dramatically rising costs of maintaining internal control have raised questions about the sustainability of the China model, which is based on the wrong assumption that economic growth trumps all else. If the government takes care of economic growth the assumption is, people will be willing to give up all moral and other demands.

As economic growth has delivered the essentials of living, Chinese people appear, in fact, to be expressing greater demand for social justice and protection of their rights. So it is increasingly difficult to contain or discourage social discontent through economic growth alone.

Whether increased repression is sustainable or political reform of some sort is inevitable are big questions.  I want to turn in a different direction, however: how current socio-economic inequalities in China violate Confucian justice norms as expressed by Mencius.

To begin, we must first acknowledge that Mencius is not, by any means, a radical egalitarian.  He clearly recognizes that variations in talents and abilities will create divergent life chances for different individuals.  Perhaps most famously, he approvingly quotes an anonymous source:

Some use their minds to work, and some use their muscles.  Those who use their minds govern, and those who use their muscles are governed.  Those who are governed provide for those who govern, and those who govern are provided for by those who are governed. 

A pretty clear political hierarchy based upon socio-economic difference.  And just in case we didn't get the point, Mencius ends this same chapter with a paragraph that begins: "But inequality is in the very nature of things."

Alright then.  Mencius is not a Digger.  But while accepting a certain level of inequality as just and right, he strenuously argues against wealth gaps that are too great.  Some inequality is acceptable, even good; too much inequality is inhumane.  And the extent of inequality in China today would would certainly be seen by Mencius as excessive and immoral.

The first chapter of  Mencius gives us several examples.  Here's one:

Emperor Hui of Liang said: "I'm ready to be taught without resenting int."

"Is there any difference between killing someone with a stick or killing them with a sword?" began Mencius.

"No, there's no difference."

"And killing with a sword or a government - any difference?"

"No difference."

"There's plenty of juicy meat in you kitchen and plenty of well-fed horses in you stable," continued Mencius, "but the people here look hungry, and in the countryside they're starving to death.  You're feeding humans to animals.  Everyone hates to see animals eat each other,and an emperor is the people's father and mother - but if his government feeds humans to animals, how can he claim to be the people's father and mother?"...

This might seem to suggest that only the most extreme inequality - lots of food for some, starvation for others - merits any Mencian concern.  But notice how government is tied into the argument.  Since it is the ruler he is addressing, and that ruler is the executive power of the government of that time, it is government, through its wrong-headed policies, that is "feeding humans to animals."

Elsewhere in chapter one, we get a fuller sense of government's responsibility to address inequality.  When talking with Emperor Hsuan of Ch'i, Mencius suggests that even more moderate levels of inequality should be of concern and he provides a guide for public policy.  Government, he argues, should "secure the people's livelihood;" that is, intervene in society to make sure everyone has sufficient material existence to fulfil their familial and social duties in dignity, to "serve their parents or nurture their wives and children." And he tells us what is required for that:

If you want to put my words into practice, why not return to fundamentals? When every five-acre farm has mulberry trees around the farmhouse, people wear silk at fifty.  And when the proper seasons of chickens and pigs and dogs are not neglected, people eat meat at seventy.  When hundred-acre farms never violate their proper seasons, even large families don't go hungry.  Pay close attention to the teaching in village schools, and extend it to the child's family responsibilities - then, when their silver hair glistens, people won't be out on the roads and paths hauling heavy loads.  Our black-haired people free of hunger and cold, wearing silk and eating meat in old age - there have never been such times without a true emperor.

That strikes me as a fairly extensive policy agenda.  One that requires serious governmental attention to inequality well before we get to conditions of starvation.  As such, a contemporary Mencian could only look at China today and condemn the glaring inequalities that now stalk the land....

(photo from ChinaSmack, "Elderly, Women, and Children Left Behind in China's Countryside.")

The Irrepublicans

The debates about raising the debt ceiling are heating up.  For someone of my age and background the whole thing is rather extraordinary.   It used to be that the Republicans were reliably the party of finance capital, making sure that Wall Street was well cared for and that creditors were protected.  They would complain about profligate Democrats who threatened to upset the bond markets.  Responsibility, for Republicans, was all about maintaining market stability, and if tax increases were necessary to do that, then that is what you did (see: Reagan, and Bush I...). 

But something happened on the way to the tea party.  Republicans are now split between the old defenders of finance capital (who must be going crazy along about now...) and the newly energized petty bourgeoisie, obsessed with self-contradictory anti-government, anti-tax ideology (self-contradictory because so many of them rely on various government programs that they, in theory, detest...).  The rhetorical and political momentum within the Republican party seems to have shifted in the direction of the latter, and their intransigence on tax questions has brought us to the brink of default, which would, of course, be disastrous not only for many average citizens but for finance capital.  Lots of tension in those Republican caucus meetings...

Now, maybe the big capitalist creditors should absorb the hurt of default, or whatever policy actions will be taken to avoid formal default.  But I am thinking that that won't happen.  If we really do move past the August 2nd deadline and onward into the financial unknown, I suspect that the little people - many tea partiers, too! - will bear the brunt of the adjustment.  That's what power is about...

Whatever the case, the petty bourgeois fanatics in Congress are threatening the livelihoods and prospects of many, many people in order to preserve their ideological purity on tax increases.  Given the circumstances, those who can afford to pay more, should pay more; taxes on the wealthiest, who, after all gain the most from the current system, should be raised. Take a little from finance capital in order to save finance capital and keep the system from collapsing - since the effects of collapse will affect many more than just finance capital.

But the Republicans can't seem to do it.  They have abandoned their old sense of responsibility.  They have become Irrepubilcans...

That, at least, is what Mencius would say (you knew I had to work the ancient Chinese philosophy in here somewhere...).  He would see them as irresponsible, since, from his point of view, when economic inequality is growing, the rich should take it upon themselves to help out the poor.  Generally speaking, Mencius is a proponent of low taxes - his well field system  was the basis for his understanding that tax rates should be one part in nine, or about 11%.  But his sense of equality is as important as any particular tax rate.  One of the great virtues of the well field system is that it applied an equal standard that could be applied to everyone.  So maybe Mencius would be an advocate today for a flat tax....  

If, however, we take his concern for countering economic inequality seriously, and I think we should, then it could be that the pursuit of equality would require some adaptations to tax policy.  Maintaining something like Medicare and Medicaid would be important for Mencius, since they allow a certain dignity in later life for the elderly.  Funding education would also be important for him.  Military spending, not so much - he would press for considerable reductions in defense spending.  But if policies that alleviated economic inequalities (not eradicate them, but simply ameliorate the worst differences) required more than a 11% tax rate, Mencius would require the rich to pay more.  He recognized that taxes can be too high, but also that taxes can be too low.  When discussing the "northern barbarians" (i.e. those uncivilized and uncultured, without sufficient governing institutions), he said:

If our rulers levy tax rates below that prescribed by the Way of Yao and Shun [ancient sage kings], they'll be nothing but barbarians great and small.  And if our rulers levy tax rates above that prescribed by the Way of Yao and Shun, they'll be nothing but tyrant Chiehs great and small. (227)

In determining appropriate tax rates, especially in a modern, industrial/post-industrial economy, Mencius would be open to debate and compromise.  He would not stick doggedly to the 11% rate that made sense for an ancient, agricultural society.  He would resist ideological rigidity:

The problem with clinging to a single doctrine is that it plunders the Way: to glorify the one, you cast out a hundred. (245)

Bottom line: the current financial situation threatens the economy and the livelihood of many people, something that would exacerbate already bad economic inequalities.  Under such circumstance the responsible, Mencian approach would be to ask the rich to do more.  But the Republicans can't see that.... they're Irrepublicans....