Li Yousheng (Xue Deng, Issue 15)

Abstract: After dividing human society into a genetically encoded primitive society and a man-made secondary society, it was found that the Chinese before the Warring States period mainly lived at the primitive society level. After the Warring States period, the Qin and Han dynasties began to establish a centralized system, but it was still based on villages. If the Confucian and Daoist philosophical systems represent a way of life, there were precursors to both during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The author speculates that at that time, Daoism was the dominant force, with Confucianism complementing it. After Emperor Wu of Han, Confucianism became the dominant force, while Daoism remained in the background and complemented Confucianism. The thoughts of Confucius and Mencius were based on the social model before the Warring States period. The social model after the Warring States period underwent fundamental changes. As the official philosophy, Confucianism advocated using the primitive society as a model to govern the secondary society. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Keywords: Primitive society, secondary society, social model, Confucianism and Taoism complementarity

Sima Qian’s father, Sima Tan, first summarized the various schools of thought in the pre-Qin period into six schools: Yin-Yang, Confucianism, Mohism, the School of Names, Legalism, and Daoism. The School of Names specialized in the debate of names, belonging to the realm of logic and epistemology. The School of Yin-Yang discussed Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, belonging to the realm of natural science. Although historically, the operation of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements was once linked to the alternation of dynasties, this was ultimately superstition and could not last. In the *Zhuangzi*, Chapter 13, “All Under Heaven,” when discussing the various schools of thought, it says, “When the world is in great chaos, the wise and virtuous are not enlightened, and morality is inconsistent. Many people gain insight into one thing to justify their own views. It is like the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth, each with its own function, yet unable to communicate with each other.” Daoism advocates returning to simplicity and authenticity, so Zhuangzi uses the division of disciplines to discuss the various schools of thought, saying that the unified Daoist doctrine of the past would be torn apart: “Alas, the various schools have gone forth and will not return; they will surely not unite!” The metaphor of the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth suggests the division of different disciplines, that is, the unified Daoist doctrine of the past split into different disciplines. Yin-Yang and the School of Names belong to different disciplines.

Sima Tan, working alongside the unified emperor, believed in a single overarching ideology encompassing all disciplines. He quoted the *Yijing* (Book of Changes) saying, “The world is unified in its principles yet diverse in its considerations; it reaches the same destination but takes different paths.” Sima Tan was referring to different schools of thought within the same discipline. Confucianism, Mohism, Legalism, and Daoism belong to different schools of thought. Mohism disappeared after the Qin and Han dynasties, its spirit of universal love being replaced by Buddhism, which did not concern itself with social or political matters. Emperor Wu of Han hybridized Confucianism and Legalism to create Imperial Confucianism, integrating political, economic, and cultural thought, complementing Daoism outside the Han court, and becoming the mainstream ideology in China’s superstructure for over two thousand years. This article intends to re-examine the mainstream culture in Chinese history under the influence of the complementary relationship between Confucianism and Daoism from the perspective of a two-tiered society.

(a) Diversification of Secondary Societies

All human societies can be divided into genetically encoded primordial societies and artificial secondary societies, forming part of the seven levels of the human biological world. These seven levels are: nucleic acid molecules, cells, tissues, organs, human body, primordial society, and secondary society. [4]

Primitive society was a society established by ancient people based on the principles of face-to-face interaction, equality, and reciprocity. The basic social unit consisted of approximately 150 people, managed by a headman without absolute authority. This headman could only persuade the people, not force them to accept anything. For convenience, this article refers to the management system of primitive society as headman politics.

Primitive society is an extension of inherited instincts; it is a natural society. Secondary society is built upon primitive society or has a population far exceeding several hundred people. Secondary society is unrelated to human nature; it is a creation of human culture and is therefore unstable, often requiring the introduction of violent institutions such as the army, police, and prisons. Class differentiation is also a crucial pillar of stability in secondary society. Secondary society is not bound by inherited instincts; its form is entirely dependent on human creation, and thus can be diverse.

The trend towards uniformity in modern society is related to cultural transmission and military conquest. The author previously discussed the application of Taoist theory in social life from the perspective of personal psychological experience, dividing it into six levels: biological, social, cultural, intellectual, spiritual, and cosmic. This progression from biological to cosmic levels represents a gradual departure from biological characteristics and a liberation from biological constraints. While primordial societies also possessed social, cultural, intellectual, spiritual, and cosmic levels, they were all based on the biological level and constrained by biological laws; therefore, primordial societies were singular. Secondary societies are no longer controlled by the biological level but are influenced by culture and higher levels, with culture and wisdom being human creations. If a secondary society leans towards the biological side, it tends towards uniformity, with predictable social laws; if it leans towards culture and wisdom, it tends towards diversity, making it difficult to discern fixed social laws. Real-world societies lie between these two biases, but because biological needs are now relatively met, society is gradually trending towards diversity. People are shifting from biological needs to psychological needs, leading to a variety of social forms.

Although large secondary societies, represented by the state, are gradually converging into a more homogeneous form, significant differences in social culture remain. With careful analysis, we can still identify many different secondary social forms within existing societies, reflecting the current trend towards social diversification.

1) Societies based on satisfying human material needs: This includes most societies in the history of human civilization. These societies are not necessarily the primary possible forms of secondary societies, and their widespread prevalence is not due to the difficulty in satisfying material needs in ancient times, but rather because controlling material needs is a shortcut to controlling large populations. Deprivation of material needs can immediately expose people to the threat of death, thus forcing them to submit to power; for this reason, social development follows certain patterns, but may not be the mainstream society of the future. However, I tend to believe that such societies are still influenced by different cultures, so the East and West have evolved along different paths throughout history, and although they can be compared, they are difficult to categorize into a single development model.

(A) Western slave societies, feudal societies, capitalist societies, and socialist societies: Slave societies can be further divided into city-state slave societies and imperial slave societies. Western socialist societies spread from Russia to other parts of the world.

(B) Centralized Imperial System Society in Chinese History: Chinese society before the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods was similar to Western feudal society and can be classified as the feudal society in Western history mentioned above.

(C) India’s caste system society.

(D) Chiefdom Society: A chiefdom is a secondary society between the original society and the state. The population is mostly less than tens of thousands and there are no state institutions such as police, prisons, and laws.

(E) Two-tiered societies in ancient times without clear class differentiation: The ancient Indus Valley Civilization and the Yao, Shun, and Yu eras of China can be classified into this category. Compared with chiefdoms, they had more advanced civilizations or large-scale engineering projects.

2) Societies based on satisfying human spiritual needs: This includes various religious organizations and their monasteries which are detached from secular society. Spiritual needs also include artistic pursuits. In primitive societies, spiritual pursuits were activities of individuals or a few people, without strict organization. Modern religious organizations have strict hierarchies and corresponding institutions, because the lack of spiritual pursuits does not necessarily lead to death, and the development law of religious societies is quite different from that of secular societies. For example, class differentiation defined by material possession is not obvious in religious societies. According to Mr. Zou Changlin, ancient China was a culture of ritual. [1] It was entirely possible to construct a two-tiered society using the ritual system. Ritual has a dual nature of religion and art, which can satisfy people’s spiritual pursuits and form a stable social structure. The early Western Zhou Dynasty can be regarded as a real example of such a society.

3) Various professional associations and clubs can be regarded as societies based on the development of surrounding potential: For example, a club based on a certain painting hobby, whose paintings may be unique and have nothing to do with their own material life, can form a sub-society of thousands of people just from a special hobby.

4) The Bureaucratic and Reserve Literati Groups and Other Similar Societies in Ancient China: The bureaucratic and reserve literati groups in ancient China formed a typical two-tiered society, which was conducive to the growth of individualistic liberalism. Modern hospitals are themselves microcosms of society, with their own organizational structures and communication systems. Hospitals possess highly specialized knowledge and play an indispensable role in secular society. Other institutions such as schools, factories, and the military also belong to this category of societies.

Clubs and hospitals cannot exist independently of secular society, nor can religious organizations exist in isolation. However, they possess the inherent strength to form independent societies and enjoy relative independence. Their dependence on secular society is minimal, relying on the police system only occasionally in cases of crime. Given the right conditions, they could very well become independent societies. They are used here to help us understand the various forms of secondary societies: the combination of property and violence is not the sole source of social stability.

5) Communist Village Societies: There are still many primitive tribal societies in remote areas of the world. Although they have been influenced by modern social culture and are no longer typical primitive societies, they are still not qualified to be called secondary societies, so they will not be discussed here. Communist villages scattered around the world are mostly products of modern culture and should be classified as secondary societies. A typical example is the Hutterites society living in Canada and the United States. They number in the tens of thousands, divided into village units of about one hundred people each. They have no private property and eat in communal canteens. Communist villages can be secular or religious, but religiously organized communist villages are more stable. Unlike prehistoric primitive societies, they have a firm belief system to resist the erosion of modern private ownership culture, so they are more like modern religious societies. [2, 3]

(II) Confucianism and Taoism complement each other

Confucius consulted Laozi, so we can say that Confucius and Zhuangzi both inherited from Laozi, only their later developments diverged. We can also view Laozi as the synthesizer of ancient culture, who summarized and elevated it to a philosophical level, encapsulating it into a unified system of thought—the broad outline of the unified Daoist philosophy described in the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi. From this unified Daoist philosophy, the Confucian school was the first to emerge. Later, the Mohist and Legalist schools further branched out.

Confucianism and Taoism both regard the era of Yao, Shun, and Yu—a primitive or near-primitive society—as their ideal society. Confucius praised Yao, Shun, and Yu many times: “How majestic were Shun and Yu’s rule over the world, yet they did not claim it as their own.” “How great was Yao as a ruler! How majestic was he! Only Heaven is great, and only Yao followed its example. How boundless was his virtue, that the people could not name it! How majestic were his achievements! How brilliant were his accomplishments!” Confucius also praised Yu’s character: “Yu, I have no fault to find with him. He was frugal in food and drink yet devoted himself to the spirits; he wore simple clothes yet adorned himself with fine robes; he lived in humble dwellings yet devoted himself to the irrigation ditches. Yu, I have no fault to find with him!” (Analects, Taibo)

The Taosi site of the Taosi culture in Shanxi Province is considered to be Pingyang, the capital of Yao and Yu. More than 1,300 tombs have been excavated there, about one percent of which are large tombs with numerous burial goods. I believe this is insufficient to conclude the existence of class differentiation solely based on the differences in tombs. According to historical records, it should be interpreted as the people’s reverence for their leaders, much like the high-ranking clergy in religions today. Of the more than one thousand tombs at the Taosi site, apart from the one percent of large tombs and the possible spouses of the deceased, the rest are all burial in the same manner, without any burial goods, which seems to contradict the conclusion of class differentiation. True class differentiation is backed by armies and violence, and this stage may not have been reached during the Yao, Shun, and Yu periods.

The *Book of Rites* (Liji) discusses the concepts of Great Harmony (Datong) and Lesser Prosperity (Xiaokang). Great Harmony refers to the primitive society, a time without government, which is the origin of Lao Tzu’s concept of “governing by non-action” (wuwei). The eras of Yao, Shun, and Yu were early stages of civilization, resembling a near-anarchic society. Confucius cited Shun as a model of Confucian “governing by non-action”: “Shun had five ministers, and the world was well-governed.” He further stated, “Was it not Shun who governed by non-action? What did he do? He simply sat respectfully facing south.” (Analects, Wei Ling Gong). This means that the era of Yao, Shun, and Yu approached the ideal society of “governing by non-action.” Confucianism and Taoism, as the mainstream of Chinese culture, also revered this ancient anarchic approach to governance and considered it the ideal for later governments.

Confucius envisioned a moderately prosperous society where, even a government built upon an army, police, and prisons, must maximally reflect the interests and demands of the people; otherwise, it will be abandoned by them. Peasant uprisings, inspired by the Confucian ideal of a egalitarian society, used violence to overthrow an inadequate moderately prosperous government.

Confucius also harbored thoughts of retiring from public life, but only after the failure of achieving a moderately prosperous society. Confucius said, “If the Way is not practiced, I will take a raft and float on the sea” (Analects, Gongye Chang), and “When the Way prevails in the world, one appears; when the Way does not prevail, one remains hidden” (Analects, Taibo). Mencius also said, “The ancients, when they achieved their ambitions, bestowed blessings upon the people; when they did not achieve their ambitions, they cultivated themselves and made their virtues known to the world. In poverty, they cultivated their own virtue; in prosperity, they benefited all under heaven” (Mencius, Gaozi II). Once Confucian politicians retired to their homes, they converted to Daoism, using its spirit to uphold their beliefs, pursuing personal well-being, and using the highest ideal of Great Harmony to criticize society. This is similar to how modern critics use the ideal of an egalitarian society as a weapon.

Neither Confucianism nor Taoism alone can fully encompass China’s culture over thousands of years; only the complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism represents the mainstream direction of Chinese culture. Within the government, Huang-Lao thought is internally employed while Confucianism is outwardly displayed. At the bureaucratic level and among their successor groups of intellectuals, Confucianism is followed in government offices, but Taoism is practiced at home. Between officials and ordinary people, officials speak of Confucianism, but Taoism prevails in the vast rural areas. When an individual enters secondary society, they should speak of Confucianism when interacting with outsiders, but advocate Taoist harmony within their family and circle of friends. The complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism is key to understanding the structure and cultural thought of Chinese society.

Using the primordial society as a model to govern secondary societies is a Confucian proposition, unrelated to Daoism. Daoists, operating outside the government, can readily invoke the banner of the primordial society as a standard, making the shortcomings and problems of Confucian governance constantly visible. Like opposition parties in Western governments, the difference is that Daoists reside among the people and lack the opportunity to speak within the government. Daoists can only exert influence and restraint on the government through public opinion, including peasant uprisings influenced by Daoism.

(III) The Pattern of Ancient Chinese Society

From the establishment of the Xia Dynasty by Yu the Great until the Spring and Autumn Period, Chinese society was a pyramid-shaped society with three levels: the emperor, feudal lords, and villages. The base consisted of numerous villages and tribes, the apex was the emperor, and the middle were the feudal lords. However, all three levels were based on the family structure, unlike in the West. Ancient Greece and the city-states of Mesopotamia broke down the family structure, with citizens participating in society as individuals. Even in the Roman Empire, the family played a significant role in politics; individuals participated in politics, with the family as their foundation and support. In China, the emperor and feudal lords first lived within their families and managed their families effectively before exercising their functions in the secondary level of society. In the early stages before and after Yu the Great, the emperor and feudal lords were appointed from within their families, often concurrently held by the original family leaders, because the secondary level of society was built upon numerous existing primordial societies. Yu the Great was first and foremost the leader of his family; like Gun, he initially led his own family in flood control efforts.

Prehistoric China clearly exhibited a matriarchal society, with the grandmother as the center of social cohesion, and village/tribal chiefs possibly being women. Inter-village/tribal interactions constituted the male social space, as men frequently met and established relationships while hunting. The custom of visiting marriage, where men would spend the night at women’s homes outside their own clan and return to work during the day, further contributed to this inter-village interaction becoming a male social space. This inter-village/tribal social space possessed the characteristics of a secondary society, upon which male power structures were built. There may have been a stage where a woman-centered primitive society and a man-centered secondary society coexisted, reflecting the distinction between surnames and clan names. Most people had surnames, derived from the female element, while only those of high status possessed separate clan names. At some point in Chinese history, this may have been a matriarchal patriarchal society. After men established power networks at the secondary social level, they attempted to penetrate the primitive society, encountering resistance from the feminist society. The situation in prehistoric Western societies may have differed from China’s; Western patriarchal societies conquered and assimilated feminist societies through force. Lao Tzu’s opposition to secondary society interfering with the primitive society, coupled with a clear tendency to praise female qualities, may reflect the historical reality of the aforementioned social transformations. This social model is listed below:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

│

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

│

Village Family Primitive Society

Quasi-primitive society refers to a secondary society built upon the primary society. While these families remained the same, they were also the families and clans of the emperor and feudal lords. This special position within the secondary society qualitatively altered these families, making them different from those in the true primary society. Nevertheless, these families wielded considerable influence over the emperor and feudal lords, much like the relationship between members of the primary society and their leaders, with a degree of democratic influence. Mencius, during the Warring States period, even advocated that families had the power to depose the ruler and install a new one, and that officials had the right to resign and seek a new monarch.

In the above model diagram, the emperor and the feudal lords, and the feudal lords and the village chiefs form a hierarchical network, representing another type of two-tiered society. However, if a laissez-faire political climate prevails, this layer of the network can also be secondary, meaning that participants primarily live within their own families. The emperor and the feudal lords, and the feudal lords and the village chiefs, do not live together, but they interact face-to-face. Although there is a hierarchical relationship, they are relatively independent, similar to the relationship between chiefs and members in primitive societies—that is, still resembling chieftain politics.

The Warring States period was a time of rapid social change, with social reforms affecting all levels of society. Ordinary people even discussed the wars between states, meaning they directly lived within the secondary social structure, disrupting the upper-level social model. Since the Song and Ming dynasties, the Four Books became compulsory reading for students; Mao Zedong also read them when he started school. The Four Books include the *Analects* and the *Mencius*, so scholars often discuss the differences between Confucius and Mencius. They find Confucius lively and endearing, unlike the serious and earnest Mencius. As for themselves, they still imitate Mencius in their speech, especially in formal settings, and would never say things like Confucius, “As long as wealth and status are attainable, I would gladly whip someone’s cart and clear the way.” The differences between Confucius and Mencius reflect the differences between the primitive society and the secondary society. In the primitive society, people faced each other, knew each other well, and spoke their minds freely. In the aforementioned model, people primarily lived within their own families, thus cultivating a frank and open style of speech. This style of speaking is still seen in rural laborers today, simple and endearing. Here are a few examples to illustrate the simplicity of the upper classes in ancient times.

The *Analects*, in the chapter “Xiangdang,” truthfully records how picky Confucius was about his lifestyle. It states that he wouldn’t eat food that wasn’t properly pounded, fish or meat that wasn’t finely cut, dishes that didn’t suit his taste, or seasonings that weren’t well-matched. When Zilu shot a pheasant, Confucius smelled it three times and decided not to eat it. In today’s upper class, such behavior wouldn’t be openly discussed. The lives of wealthy Westerners are rarely reported to avoid inciting social resentment. Once, while traveling, Confucius became separated from his disciples. Upon returning, they recounted how someone had mocked him, saying he looked like a homeless dog. Confucius replied, “I don’t know about other things. But as for being a homeless dog, I certainly do resemble one, very much.” On another occasion, Confucius asked his disciples to express their aspirations. Only Zeng Xi’s words received Confucius’s praise. After others had shared their ambitions for governing the country, Zeng Xi said, “In late spring, when the spring clothes are ready, I would like to go with five or six adults and six or seven children to bathe in the Yi River, enjoy the breeze at the Dance Altar, and sing as we return.” What he described was nothing more than a spring outing with friends to the countryside.

These seemingly minor incidents reveal that Confucius’s character was consistent with that of primitive society. Such conversations might still be appropriate within families and among friends today, though not considered refined or elegant. The Confucian school recorded these sayings and passed them down, reflecting their approach to governing a moderately prosperous society based on the model of primitive society. This also illustrates that the social activity space of people from the Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn periods was primarily that of primitive society. The expansion of this secondary social space led to the development of a set of norms for speech among scholars. Mencius followed these norms, thus distinguishing his speaking style from that of Confucius.

The aforementioned social model underwent fundamental changes during the Warring States period, evolving into a centralized imperial system that lasted for over two thousand years, the model of which is as follows:

The quasi-primitive society of the imperial family

│

Bureaucrats and reserve intellectual groups are the second-level social group

Village families (citizens) Quasi-primitive society

The forces that led village families away from their original social nature included: cultural influence from the upper classes, as the operas they saw and the stories they read largely reflected upper-class life; limited but significant social opportunities such as commerce, which created independent individuals; and increased population density and the infiltration of people from different families, gradually transforming them into urban dwellers. Chinese urban residents lacked the political independence of modern European urban residents and had little impact on mainstream Chinese society. These are collectively referred to as quasi-primitive societies.

The emperor’s family had become entrenched in the power struggles of the secondary society. Although still bound by family and blood ties, it had strayed far from the original nature of the primary society. This is referred to here as a distorted quasi-primitive society. The most significant change in the upper-level social model was the addition of a bureaucratic and literati class sandwiched in between.

(iv) Using the primitive society as a template to govern secondary societies: Model 1

Confucianism, with its veneration of Yao and Shun and its model of Wen and Wu, affirms the civilized society of ancient China while criticizing the chaotic state of ritual and music during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. Although Confucius particularly admired the politics of the early Western Zhou Dynasty, the social system from the Xia and Shang Dynasties to the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods likely did not change significantly. Therefore, this article divides the social structure of China into two models, with the Warring States period as the dividing line.

Both Confucianism and Taoism idealized a prehistoric utopian society, but only Confucianism advocated using this primordial society as a model for governing secondary societies. The first social model spans approximately 1600-1700 years, from the Xia Dynasty to the Spring and Autumn Period. Confucian social and political theories are based on this model, which closely resembles the primordial society. The second social model spans approximately 2100 years, from the Qin Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. Confucianism held a dominant position for about 2000 years during this period, representing the implementation of Confucianism’s model of governing secondary societies. The result was that the former stage was more ideal, and for simplicity, it is called the model period; the latter stage had many problems and is called the imitation period, or the imitation model period.

During the model period, Confucianism and Taoism had not yet been established, but their intellectual traditions already existed. Although this period was already a secondary society, under the influence of traditional ideas similar to Confucianism and Taoism, the society was as close as possible to the original society. As long as there was no external pressure, the society did not exceed a few hundred people, and everyone interacted face to face. The original society could form naturally, and the characteristics of the original society could be naturally revealed. This was determined by human genetic nature. [4]

Because members of the original societies at all levels had ample leisure time, organizing artistic and religious rituals, as well as public welfare activities such as water management, was possible without altering the basic social structure. These non-productive activities generally did not lead to class divisions where one class oppressed another. The higher material standard of living of the emperor and feudal lords, shared within their families and separated from the lower-income villages, was likely accommodated by the system and would not cause social conflict. Small-scale military conflicts and violent clashes were unlikely to alter the stability of this system; we firmly believe that human nature possesses a certain buffering capacity. Only large-scale material production activities and large-scale violent conflicts would lead to the emergence of classes.

Human nature’s buffering capacity can prevent the emergence of classes for a long time. Even after the emergence of class society, the buffering capacity of the first social model itself maintained the relative stability of this social system. Class differences increased social conflict, leading to emotional imbalances and the introduction of morality and etiquette, but the primitive society remained the primary form of social life. Therefore, during the period of the first social model in ancient China, Chinese social life was close to the nature of the primitive society. Large-scale two-tiered societies based on individuals, like those in the West, may not have emerged during the period of the first social model in China; people’s social activities were mainly confined to the primitive and quasi-primitive societies. This can be confirmed by Confucius’s simple and straightforward way of speaking, as mentioned above.

Another piece of evidence that people’s social activities still revolve around the primitive and quasi-primitive societies is that Lao Tzu and Confucius, China’s earliest systematic social theorists, both considered the primitive society as their ideal, and seemingly did not yet have a clear understanding of the two-tiered society. A clear understanding of the two-tiered society only emerged with Xunzi and Han Fei. In the primitive society, basic human nature is sufficient to maintain social stability and harmony, hence Mencius said that human nature is good; in the two-tiered society, human nature is insufficient to maintain social stability, requiring the introduction of other mechanisms, hence Xunzi said that human nature is evil.

Both Confucius and Mencius spoke many things that are clearly unsuitable for a secondary society, and can only be understood through the lens of headman politics in a primitive, face-to-face society. Confucius said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead with uprightness, who would dare to be unupright?” He also said, “If one’s conduct is upright, one’s orders will be followed without being given; if one’s conduct is not upright, one’s orders will not be followed even if given” (Analects, Zilu). These words are clearly only applicable to headman politics in a primitive society. Leaders in a secondary society need to devise solutions to problems and provide clear guidelines and instructions to their subordinates; simply setting an example in everything is not enough. Farmers are idle at least throughout the winter; how to organize them to pursue public good seems to be a concept completely overlooked by Confucianism. Organizing the leisure time of the people to pursue material civilization is a Western idea, seemingly outside the purview of ancient Chinese thinkers.

Mencius opposed unifying the world through wars of annexation, believing that as long as benevolent governance was implemented and the hearts of the people were won, the world could be unified. In a dialogue with King Xuan of Qi, Mencius put forward specific standards that modern scholar Li Shen considers to be the economic ideal of a moderately prosperous society. [5]

Mencius said, “If the elderly are clothed in silk and eat meat, and the common people are neither hungry nor cold, yet there is no king, there has never been one” (Mencius, King Hui of Liang, Part 1). It is not difficult to achieve a society where the common people do not suffer from hunger or cold, and where the elderly are well cared for. At least many countries and regions have reached this standard, yet unification has not been achieved, nor has war been completely eradicated. Only under primitive social conditions, when material life is guaranteed, and people are content with a leisurely and comfortable life, can a unified and peaceful situation emerge. In a secondary society, there will always be some who want to exploit the labor of others to realize their unlimited ambitions, and the secondary society provides them with this possibility.

Confucius seemed to believe that if a ruler governed himself well, the country would automatically improve. Mencius believed that one could rule the world simply by having a benevolent heart. This is the ideal of non-interference in governance as spoken of by Confucianism, and in reality, Confucianism advocated minimizing the quasi-anarchic state of government institutions. As mentioned above, the *Analects* praises Shun’s non-interference in governance (Section 2 of this article). We can infer that under the aforementioned first social model, China largely governed the country according to the non-interference ideas of Confucius and Mencius, and quite successfully. This success blocked the path of Western second-order societies in pursuing material civilization.

Historical records detailing the misdeeds of the last kings of the Xia and Shang dynasties may be embellishments by later generations. In Western political parties, a single misspoken word can cause a candidate’s advantage to crumble instantly. King Jie of Xia and King Zhou of Shang likely made inappropriate decisions that fueled popular discontent, leading to their easy defeat by their subordinates. Compared to the emperors of the Qin and Han dynasties, this only indicates that the society at that time was closer to a primitive society, with a strong democratic atmosphere. Dynastic changes were like changing leaders in primitive societies—not a major event.

When Duke Jing of Qi consulted Confucius about governance, Confucius said, “Let the ruler be a ruler; let the minister be a minister; let the father be a father; let the son be a son” (Analects, Yan Yuan). Confucius clearly equated the relationship between ruler and minister with that of father and son. In early societies, the leader was often the father figure, which demonstrates that Confucius confused early society with secondary societies. Due to Confucius’s influence, China later indeed viewed the relationship between ruler and minister as that of father and son. For example, when Hai Rui offended the emperor with his memorial, the Ministry of Justice decided to sentence him to death by hanging for the crime of a son cursing his father. A father scolding or beating his son out of anger was not considered excessive, so the emperor had the right to execute a minister out of anger. Confucius also said, “When the world is governed by the Way, the common people do not discuss matters” (Analects, Ji Shi). This means that people spend most of their time living within their own early society, with little understanding of higher-level societies. Class differences are within the bounds of human nature, and people have no reason to discuss them.

A secondary society presents many possibilities, so it’s crucial to choose a direction and a corresponding value system, formulate a blueprint for the social structure, and then mobilize human and material resources to build it. Plato, like Confucius and Mencius, possessed a compassionate heart, but he lived in a completely secondary society, free from the remnants of primordial societal thought. Therefore, in Plato’s ideal state, there were not only no slaves, but even gender equality. Plato clearly recognized the difficulty, even the complete impossibility, of realizing his ideal state. At least, Plato himself had no intention of promoting his political ideals. The rulers of Plato’s ideal state would undergo rigorous selection and a brutal elimination process, requiring decades of training to become powerful monarchs. To ensure their impartiality and selflessness, the rulers were forbidden from having families, though sexual activity was permitted under strict control. They were also forbidden from owning private property to prevent them from abusing their power for personal gain. Clearly, Plato understood that in a secondary society, human nature alone was insufficient to stabilize society; before a mature social mechanism was established, people could not be trusted.

In his *History of Chinese Civilization*, Mr. Qi Liang dedicated a section to discussing the difference between populism and democracy. He proposed Sparta as a representative of aristocratic republics and Athens as a representative of democratic republics, representing two types of ancient democracy. In Sparta, a council of thirty elders (including two kings) held administrative and judicial power, making decisions through meetings. There were two kings, overseen by five censors who monitored and investigated their illegal activities. While nominally the kings were elected by the assembly of citizens, the lack of a reliable vote-counting method made them susceptible to manipulation by the nobility. Therefore, Mr. Qi Liang argued that the Spartan assembly was not significant. Athens, on the other hand, granted all male citizens the right to participate in politics and elect officials. Athens also had a system of exile by shell writing on shells those citizens deemed detrimental to the democratic system; those chosen were required to leave Athens for ten years. Polycollis said, “Power is in the hands of all citizens, not a few. Everyone is equal before the law. No one will be politically forgotten because of poverty, as long as he can contribute to the country.”[6]

What Mr. Qi Liang failed to mention is that the so-called citizens of Sparta and Athens were actually soldiers, serving as warriors in times of war, while a slave class engaged in various forms of productive labor. This fully demonstrates that their democracy required a strong military force as a guarantee. The democratic systems of Sparta and Athens, along with the political system of Plato’s ideal state mentioned above, illustrate that the order of a two-tiered society requires special institutions or external forces to maintain it, which is also the original meaning of Lao Tzu’s saying that the divine instrument of the world cannot be grasped or manipulated. It also shows that societies based on satisfying human material needs can have many different forms of organization.

Western democracy is a form of secondary society, while populism is a concept from primary society. Generally speaking, Western democracy does not penetrate primary society, and top-down populism is difficult to truly implement in secondary societies. In Western society, democratic ideas have permeated every corner of life, becoming one of the fundamental values. However, in Western families, democracy remains difficult to implement, and their management still resembles the patriarchal politics of primary society.

The author firmly believes that populism was the natural guiding ideology of primitive society, while societies dominated by shamanism and deities were a later development. Populism in primitive society arose naturally and did not require deliberate promotion. Confucianism’s virtue-based governance and the politics of virtuous men were later developments, just as Lao Tzu said, “Therefore, when the Way is lost, virtue follows; when virtue is lost, benevolence follows; when benevolence is lost, righteousness follows; when righteousness is lost, ritual follows. Ritual is the thinnest form of loyalty and trustworthiness, and the beginning of chaos.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 38) In other words, the emergence of humanism was evidence that the original natural humanism was threatened. When the first social model approximates the primitive society as closely as possible, the dominant ideology of society is natural humanism. Ancient Chinese society may have frequently deviated from the primitive and quasi-primitive social forms, constantly leading to violent conflicts, forcing those in power to propose a humanistic approach of virtue-based governance to correct these problems. Faced with these violent conflicts, Confucianism and Taoism, though different, complemented each other: Confucianism attempted to control social order and reduce turmoil through the politics of virtuous men; Taoist scholars, from the perspective of primitive society, advocated returning to simplicity and authenticity, returning to the model of ancient primitive society. The goals of both Confucianism and Taoism were the same: to keep China in the primitive or quasi-primitive stage of society and prevent the emergence of a secondary society amidst turmoil. The first philosophical system to emerge during the Spring and Autumn period was Laozi, supporting the assumption that Taoism, rather than Confucianism, was the prevailing philosophy of this period.

Before the Spring and Autumn Period, China likely lacked large-scale secondary societies composed of free individuals, as seen in the West. Consequently, those in power never saw the potential for such societies to develop. The *Zuo Zhuan* records, “Though a city may be large, it shall not exceed three hundred *zhang*; though the population may be large, it shall not exceed three thousand households.” Assuming five people per household, three thousand households would amount to fifteen thousand people, exceeding the limit of a few hundred in primitive society by a relatively small margin. If these were organized into primitive family-style structures, it would be even less likely to form a large-scale secondary society of free individuals; at most, they would reach the level of the aforementioned chiefdoms. Commerce could generate space for free individual activity in a secondary society, but in ancient China, commerce and industry were under government control, restricting their free development. Scholarly discussions among intellectuals also tend to foster free-thinking individuals, but a large-scale academic atmosphere only emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. In short, the lack of large-scale secondary social activity during the model period of ancient China prevented the ruling class and their affiliated intellectuals from understanding the nature and potential of secondary societies. This kept China at the humanistic level of primitive society for a long time, hindering its development towards democracy.

(V) Using the primitive society as a template to govern secondary societies: the second model

As mentioned in the second section above, both Confucianism and Taoism take the original society as their ideal, but only Confucianism pursues the ideal of governing a moderately prosperous society based on the principles of the original society.

The Great Learning, one of the Four Books, states: “Those in ancient times who wished to manifest their bright virtue to the world first ordered well their own states. Those who wished to order well their states first regulated their families. Those who wished to regulate their families first cultivated their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives first rectified their hearts. Those who wished to rectify their hearts first made their intentions sincere. Those who wished to make their intentions sincere first extended their knowledge. The extension of knowledge lies in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, intentions are sincere; when intentions are sincere, hearts are rectified; when hearts are rectified, personal lives are cultivated; when personal lives are cultivated, families are regulated; when families are regulated, states are ordered well; when states are ordered well, the world is at peace. From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard the cultivation of personal life as the root. It is impossible for the root to be disordered while the branches are well-ordered. It is impossible for what is valued to be neglected while what is neglected to be valued. This is called knowing the root; this is called the ultimate knowledge.”

Later generations usually simplify this passage to “cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world,” which outlines the inevitable path of a scholar’s life in ancient China.

The first sentence of the above introduction, “Those in ancient times who wished to manifest their bright virtue to the world,” refers to the ancients, specifically the first social model, thus only touching upon the level of governing feudal states. Confucianism, however, uses the examples of the ancients to guide future generations. Living in the second social model, with centralized power and a unified world, scholars invariably speak of the world. “Investigating things to attain knowledge” means understanding things and enriching one’s knowledge. “Attaining knowledge” signifies having a clear goal. Intellectuals living in the second social model, having acquired knowledge and lofty goals, would then embark on the ideal of “cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world.” “Cultivating oneself and regulating one’s family” refers to the original society, while “governing the state and bringing peace to the world” pertains to the secondary society. Here, Confucianism ignores Lao Tzu’s warning that “the world is a sacred vessel that cannot be grasped or manipulated,” disregards the essential difference between the original and secondary societies, equating them and attempting to use the experience of cultivating oneself and regulating one’s family to govern the state and bring peace to the world. Later Confucian scholars similarly ignored the differences between the two social models mentioned above, directly applying the Confucian and Mencian doctrines, which were aimed at the first social model, to the second, which amounted to blindly imitating a model. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Primitive society, based on human nature, possesses a powerful appeal and cohesive force for its social principles. Primitive society is the eternal refuge of all humanity. While secondary societies may differ, there is only one primitive society, and adopting it as an ideal facilitates a unified and prosperous nation-building policy. People often discuss why Chinese civilization has continued uninterrupted for thousands of years, while Western civilization has experienced periods of rise and fall. Scholars offer many explanations. From the perspective of a two-tiered society, Western society breaks down the primitive society and restructures the secondary society; once it disintegrates, it cannot continue. Theoretically, the decline of Western civilization is merely a return to the primitive society, at least as it was in the Middle Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. Ancient Chinese society was a two-tiered structure, built upon the primitive society as a template, allowing the secondary society to closely resemble the primitive society, thus enabling long-term stability and uninterrupted continuation for thousands of years. Similarly, Chinese civilization has a strong ability to embrace and integrate surrounding ethnic groups and cultures, producing a phenomenon rarely seen in world history: successful invaders ultimately assimilate into the ocean of Chinese culture, not through military victory, but through cultural influence. Aside from a few exceptional circumstances such as war, ancient Chinese governments were generally small, with relatively few officials, and a relatively peaceful coexistence between superiors and subordinates. The reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing in the Han Dynasty are a typical example. The total number of officials in the Tang, Song, and Qing dynasties was around 20,000 each, while the populations of the Tang and Song dynasties ranged from 50 million to 100 million, and the Qing dynasty from 200 million to 400 million. Taking the Qing dynasty’s population of 400 million as an example, the number of social administrators was only one in 20,000. This ratio is one percent, or even one in a thousand, in modern society, making it not an exaggeration to say that ancient China was close to anarchy.

Ancient Chinese secondary societies did not interfere with the original society, allowing villages to govern themselves and letting nature take its course. The government only levied small taxes. Officials sent by the emperor only reached the county level, and a county’s population ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. This tradition of non-interference in rural areas was particularly emphasized during the Ming Dynasty. During Zhu Yuanzhang’s reign, all officials were forbidden from going to the countryside unless specifically authorized. Anyone who went to the countryside without permission could be charged with “disturbing the people” and sentenced to death. This practice of enclosing the countryside within family and village communities made rural life relatively stable. Except during times of war, drought, or flood, life was generally as Lao Tzu described: “They find their food sweet, their clothes beautiful, their dwellings comfortable, and their customs joyful,” leading a simple and happy life. They had plenty of leisure time, especially in winter when they had nothing to do. They also used their leisure time for spiritual pursuits, including religious pursuits such as praying to gods and Buddhas. The sheer number of festivals they celebrated each year, the grandeur of their weddings and funerals, and the frequency and scale of their various recreational activities—often requiring everyone to work in the fields instead of farm—would surely evoke envy in today’s urban office workers. Compared to modern life, their existence was closer to that of a prehistoric, primitive society. Their weakness remained the same: anarchy offered no resistance to secondary socio-political forces. Their lives could be wiped out overnight by chaotic armies, leaving no trace in history.

The centralized imperial system swept away the feudal states that represented the middle class, and then further diminished military power, placing the army under the control of the civil service. As illustrated in the second social model above, this marked the disappearance of the middle class, replaced by weak and ineffective intellectuals. This disappearance of the middle class was particularly pronounced in the Ming Dynasty. The founding emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang, severely cracked down on large landowners, leaving only peasants and small landowners. In 1397, the Ministry of Revenue reported that there were 14,341 households with 700 mu of land nationwide, a list submitted to Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang for his review. Clearly, under Zhu Yuanzhang’s personal supervision, these 14,000 households had to shoulder various local financial obligations to prevent them from accumulating further wealth. Organizing the peasants’ leisure time for higher-level development, whether in the economic or artistic fields, requires a certain economic foundation, much like creating a job today requires significant investment. Without this economic strength, peasants could only spend their leisure time in their traditional ways. As soon as centralized power loosened even slightly, a middle class would automatically emerge. For example, the Yue Family Army, led by Yue Fei during the Song Dynasty, emerged under the unique circumstances of the transition from the Southern to the Northern Song Dynasty. Although they were highly effective in resisting foreign invasions, they were ultimately not tolerated by the unified dynasty, and Yue Fei was unjustly imprisoned. This hatred of the middle class was inherent in the Chinese imperial system and had nothing to do with the thoughts and actions of individual emperors. One reason for this was their lack of understanding of a two-tiered society.

With the disappearance of the middle class, the original democratic atmosphere vanished. The Mencius-esque decision to depose and install a new ruler, or to leave the emperor, became increasingly difficult. The proverb “serving a ruler is like serving a tiger” illustrates that emperors, like tigers, could neither be deposed nor removed; one could only serve them with constant anxiety. This disappearance of the democratic atmosphere manifested in the emperor’s free will. Reading Chinese history clearly reveals the emperors’ capriciousness and lack of restraint, including in the preservation of long-standing institutions. For example, Emperor Taizong of Tang, to demonstrate his magnanimity, allowed Nestorian Christianity to establish itself in China; Empress Wu Zetian, a devout Buddhist, ordered its closure. As for the conflict between Buddhism and Taoism, one emperor favored Buddhism and suppressed Taoism, closing down Taoism; another emperor, preferring Taoism, ordered all Buddhists to convert to Taoism. Furthermore, Zhu Yuanzhang, born a peasant, was particularly concerned with rural areas, and the Ming Dynasty had many seemingly comical regulations, like a nanny caring for a child, demonstrating that Chinese emperors often mistook the vast country of China for a primitive society. The following examples illustrate the free expression of thought by Chinese emperors.

Each village formulated its own “village covenant” according to the instructions of the imperial court. A “Declaration Pavilion” and a “Commendation Pavilion” were also built. The names of villagers with good deeds and bad deeds were investigated and announced by the elders. In addition, disputes among villagers over heredity, marriage, property transfer, and fighting were also judged and resolved by the elders in front of these two buildings. Twice a year, in the first and tenth months of the lunar calendar, local officials held “village banquets” in each area, and all households had to participate. Before the distribution of food and drink, there were various programs such as chanting rituals, giving speeches, announcing the imperial court’s decrees, and criticizing villagers for not following the rules. If a villager with bad deeds avoided being criticized, all the participants would point out that he was a “stubborn person” and, depending on the circumstances, could report to the government and be exiled to the frontier. [7]

As for the personal lifestyles of emperors, they were incredibly diverse and spectacular. Qin Shi Huang, despite having seventy scholars, did not employ them, making all decisions himself, regardless of their importance, and reviewing over 120 jin (approximately 60 catties) of official documents daily. Emperor Shenzong of Ming, Zhu Yijun, neglected state affairs for over thirty years, neither attending court nor receiving ministers, yet memorials piled up like mountains. He even disregarded the appointment and dismissal of officials; in 1614, there was only one Minister of the Six Ministries, the position of Censor-in-Chief had been vacant for ten years, and more than half of the provincial, prefectural, and county administrative positions were vacant. Emperor Chongzhen, who killed his daughter, saying “Why were you born into my family?” before hanging himself, was fickle in his appointments and prone to killing. During his seventeen-year reign, seven governors-general and eleven provincial governors were killed, fourteen Ministers of War were replaced, seventeen Ministers of Justice were replaced, and fifty Grand Secretaries of the Inner Cabinet were replaced. Emperor Wu of Liang during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Xiao Yan, was a devout Buddhist, eating only one meal a day of vegetables and coarse rice. When witnessing the execution of prisoners, he would weep bitterly to show his compassion. He once entered a monastery four times and refused to return, determined to become a monk; his ministers, left with no other choice, paid a huge sum to ransom him. These extreme examples are numerous, sufficient to illustrate that neither the Confucianism that championed benevolence and righteousness, nor the Legalism that upheld impartiality, nor the corresponding court systems, had much power to restrain the emperor. None of them could replace the checks and balances exerted by the middle class of the feudal lords during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.

The disappearance of the middle class meant that the emperor’s orders could reach every village and every peasant directly. Chinese emperors often believed they had the power to mobilize the entire nation’s peasantry, a misconception. Mobilizing so many people requires a stronger middle class and a more efficient organizational structure. While chieftains in primitive societies could lead their people from one place to another, the emperor mistakenly believed he could command all peasants to do the same—these are two entirely different things. Because of the lack of a middle class and a democratic atmosphere, top-down errors could not be promptly corrected, and ambitious emperors could lead to nationwide catastrophes, as exemplified by Qin Shi Huang and Emperor Yang of Sui. The Great Wall and the Grand Canal were at least more practical than the Egyptian pyramids and more persuasive in mobilizing peasants; the total number of laborers required may have been far less than the total spare time of all peasants, but the lack of an effective middle structure hindered their implementation. The fact that eight hundred laborers, including Chen Sheng and Wu Guang, faced execution for failing to reach their destination on time due to rain demonstrates that the administrative command system backed by harsh laws had reached its limits. This is even more true for the massive oversight system. If high wages were offered to hire people, there would be no need for such severe penalties; farmers across the country would come knocking on the door. It is said that the ancient Egyptian pyramids were built by hiring people, or at least not entirely by administrative orders.

Rural China closely resembled the primitive social life, while large-scale corvée labor projects created a temporary secondary society. The lifestyles of the two were drastically different; the latter resembled the slave life of the silver miners in ancient Athens. Compared to slaves, peasants had the hope of returning to the countryside, but they lacked the discipline and discipline of slaves. The sudden shift from a carefree life to slavery was a drastic change, making management extremely difficult. Discontented masses, gathered for any reason, could easily become the source of uprisings and rebellions. The corvée labor-bound peasant groups possessed many psychological factors that made them prone to losing control. For example, peasants were inclined towards supernatural thinking and easily influenced by suggestion; Kuhler’s self-awareness stemmed from interactions within the primitive social group, where self-respect was nonexistent. The so-called loss of control simply meant that group members suddenly forgot the behavioral norms of the secondary society, blindly obeying temporary leaders or imitating the behavior of others. Once an uncontrolled group formed, their actions became uniform, exhibiting immense self-sacrifice and heroism. According to Freud’s analysis, the internalization of others’ will into one’s own and the unconscious superego constituted the basis of such a psychological group. [8] The author explains this collective supernormal behavior by using the awe-inspiring power of large-scale human gatherings on individual psychology and the god-like world effect of secondary societies.

In short, it was no easy task for ancient Chinese emperors to employ a large number of agricultural laborers; extensive oversight and harsh laws were indispensable. The fact that large-scale peasant uprisings followed Qin Shi Huang and Sui Yangdi was by no means accidental.

The construction of a two-tiered society has a wide range of possibilities, but these are impossible to foresee, especially given the limited interaction between ancient China and other civilizations, particularly the West, making it difficult to understand the possibilities of different societies. Similarly, the West, lacking understanding of China’s situation, constructed its own two-tiered society far ahead of China’s, differing from the social development dictated by Daoist and Confucian schools that idealized a primitive society. For example, Plato’s *Republic* meticulously and concretely considered the various contradictions and difficulties of a two-tiered society, evaluating the four forms of government in ancient Greece as merely degenerate versions of the ideal state. While the political thought of Plato and Aristotle significantly influenced European political development, the West also lacked an understanding of the diversity of two-tiered societies. Politically, there was no fixed direction or plan; instead, the direction of society was determined by the constant balancing and adjustment of various social forces—a process akin to feeling one’s way across a river, going wherever the tide takes them. The so-called modern democratic system in the West, including the separation of powers and representative party systems, was not the result of careful design and comprehensive consideration. This has led to the emergence of anarchism and various utopian ideas. Western conservatism attributes humanity’s trial-and-error approach to divine will. They mean that while the existing forms of Western society are indeed accidental, lacking profound meaning or rationality, this very accident possesses a sacred quality and cannot be arbitrarily altered—akin to Lao Tzu’s concept of the divine instrument of the world being ungraspable and unmanageable. The complementary relationship between Confucianism and Taoism in China, with its ideal of a primordial society, blurs the distinction between primordial and secondary societies, thus failing to seriously consider how to construct such a society, and completely lacking any connection to the different social structures found in the West.

_______________________________________

[1] Zou Changlin (2000): Chinese Etiquette Culture. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.

[2] Flint, D(1975): The Hutterites, A Study in Prejudice. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

[3] Peter, KA(1987): The Dynamics of Hutterite Society, An Analytical Approach. Edmonton, Canada: The University of Alberta Press.

[4] Yu Sheng (2008): A new perspective on the differences between Eastern and Western cultures. Xue Deng, Issue 7, Confucius 2000 (www.confucius2000.com).

[5] Li Shen (2003): Five Thousand Years of Xiaokang (Moderately Prosperous Society). Southern Weekend, January 19, 2003.

[6] Qi Liang (2001): A History of Chinese Civilization. Guangzhou: Huacheng Publishing House. pp. 357-67.

[7] Huang Renyu [1996]: A Grand History of China. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore.

[8] McClelland [2003]: A History of Western Political Thought. Haikou: Hainan Publishing House. pp. 748-74.

(This article was originally published in *Looking at Life and the World from a Different Perspective: Chinese Taoism in the 21st Century*, Thread-Bound Book Bureau, 2009. This republication includes an added summary and several textual and content revisions. Author)

Learning Lamp, Issue 15

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share