Hi Ben:
I just read a short article from China Digital Times which explained why in spite
of the fact that Mencius was the best student of Confucius, he was often
rejected by subsequent rulers in Chinese history. I copy it here in case you are
interested.
I just read a short article from China Digital Times which explained why in spite
of the fact that Mencius was the best student of Confucius, he was often
rejected by subsequent rulers in Chinese history. I copy it here in case you are
interested.
-Wang Yi
The Ancient Roots of Chinese Liberalism: Response
At The Useless Tree, Sam Crane responds to Liu Junning’s exploration of “The
Ancient Roots of Chinese Liberalism” in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:
I am sure that serious students of Chinese philosophy would take issue with the
suggestion that something like a modern liberalism was in the minds, much less
the actions, of ancient Chinese thinkers. Laozi and Mencius were not, in their
own times, liberals, at least as we understand the term “liberal” now. At its
most basic, liberalism asserts the significance of individual rights, and that that
conception of individual rights was alien to ancient Chinese cultural and political
contexts.
But that does not mean Liu is wrong. Although ancient thinkers were not
themselves liberal in a modern sense, ancient thought can be made consistent
with contemporary liberalism. Take Mencius. His emphasis on serving the people
and his notion that “Heaven sees through the eyes of the people, and Heaven
hears through the ears of the people” raise all sorts of questions. It could
suggest that individual members of the group known as the “people” must have a
certain autonomy, which then allows them to assess independently their quality
of life and the efficacy of a ruler’s policies. Moreover, it could further
suggest that the preferences and opinions of the “people” must somehow be
expressed and measured – and how will that take place? Long story short, a
system of legal protections of individual rights and electoral participation
would be consistent with the more general Mencian understanding of the political
role of the “people.” Thus, even if Mencius himself was not, strictly speaking,
a liberal, his thought, when transposed into a modern context, can be compatible
with – and actually may require – liberalism.
certain autonomy, which then allows them to assess independently their quality
of life and the efficacy of a ruler’s policies. Moreover, it could further
suggest that the preferences and opinions of the “people” must somehow be
expressed and measured – and how will that take place? Long story short, a
system of legal protections of individual rights and electoral participation
would be consistent with the more general Mencian understanding of the political
role of the “people.” Thus, even if Mencius himself was not, strictly speaking,
a liberal, his thought, when transposed into a modern context, can be compatible
with – and actually may require – liberalism.
Liu’s article is a welcome reminder of these possibilities.
