Yusheng (2009)

Abstract: This paper divides human society into a genetically encoded primordial society and a man-made secondary society, and examines ancient Chinese history based on this division. Unlike other ancient civilizations, Chinese civilization began with a dual-structure system: a superpower maintaining peace and building the newly emerging secondary society upon numerous primordial societies. This system kept ancient Chinese society stable at the primordial or quasi-primordial level for a long period. This social form only fundamentally changed during the Warring States period. In contrast, Western civilization began with the typical secondary society of city-states, following a path of war-driven development. Referring to Western civilization, this paper presents eight detailed pieces of evidence demonstrating that China before the Warring States period was a primordial society, and discusses the profound impact of this historical fact on Chinese culture and history. This paper proposes that the division of labor and connections between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain provides a possible neurological basis for the construction of human secondary societies.

Keywords: Primitive society, Secondary society, Two-frame structure, Superpower, Human nature

If the other three of the four ancient civilizations—China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India—had close interactions and convergent tendencies from their early stages, then Chinese civilization is all the more remarkable. Chinese civilization possesses many characteristics distinct from other civilizations. In today’s world, with its rapid advancements in technology and wealth accumulation, and the challenges of resource depletion in this small global village, scholars speculate that different cultures will replace existing nations in the competition on the world stage. Therefore, researching and contributing the unique characteristics of ancient Chinese civilization to the modern world becomes even more necessary.

For over five thousand years, Chinese civilization has demonstrated remarkable inclusiveness and integrative power towards surrounding peoples and cultures. Unlike other civilizations that rose and fell in succession, Chinese civilization has been able to develop continuously. This article proposes that Chinese civilization, based on a primordial society shaped by genetic coding, is closer to human nature as its intrinsic reason. Unlike ancient Western city-states and modern societies, the main aspects of social life in my country before the Warring States period resembled a primordial society. The following sections will describe the concept and characteristics of a primordial society, the feasibility of the pre-Warring States period being a primordial society, the numerous historical evidences supporting this view, and its profound impact on the subsequent two thousand years of history.

I. Primitive Society and Secondary Society ①② (①Li, You-Sheng, A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy, London, Canada, Taoist Recovery Centre, 2005. ②You-Sheng: Looking at Life and the World from a Different Angle: Chinese Taoism in the 21st Century, Beijing: Thread-Bound Book Bureau, 2009. (In publication))

Human societies throughout history can be divided into two categories: genetically encoded primordial societies and artificially constructed secondary societies. This is a fundamental and therefore crucial classification. From these definitions, we can deduce many fundamental differences between these two types of societies. Genetically encoded primordial societies are those humans are born into. Human nature is clearly the pillar of harmony and function in such societies, and human nature itself is sufficient to ensure their stability. Because it is determined by heredity, there is only one type. Primitive societies are based on face-to-face interaction and the principles of equality and reciprocity. Due to the limitations of brain capacity, such societies typically have around 150 members. Because they live face-to-face and in close proximity, they communicate psychologically and emotionally. At a deep level of psychological and emotional consciousness, primitive societies are a unified whole, with each member being a part of this whole. Primitive societies are governed by a leader who lacks the ability to force others to accept their intentions. This leader can only persuade and conform to the will of the masses—a concept akin to the Daoist principle of non-action. For those who disobey, there are no reliable means of punishment. Although primitive societies lack politics in the modern sense, for simplicity, this article will refer to the primordial society’s leader-management system as leader politics.

A secondary society, being a man-made society, possesses goals and direction—its ideological system—and corresponding social structures adapted to these goals and direction. If we consider contemporary secondary societies as those focused on wealth accumulation, then the degree of wealth becomes the measure of social rewards and punishments, leading to numerous classes and strata marked by wealth. Since secondary societies are human creations, they naturally have countless possible forms; a society can only choose one form, blocking other possibilities. To prevent members from recklessly seeking other possibilities, legally mandated institutions of force such as the military, police, and courts are indispensable. In a secondary society, imposing predetermined intentions on individuals becomes possible and a necessary means of organizing large-scale social projects. Members in a secondary society cannot engage in psychological or emotional communication with society. The unity of a secondary society depends on the consensus of all members regarding the society’s predetermined goals and direction. Therefore, primordial societies are based on intuition and the subconscious, while secondary societies are based on human consciousness and rational thinking. To help readers understand this difference, two animal examples are given below. All animal societies are primordial societies.

Chimpanzee society is based on face-to-face interaction. Each chimpanzee has a clear understanding of the history of other chimpanzees and can roughly predict their behavior. Chimpanzees have a habit of reaching out to their companions who have food to beg for it. For example, if chimpanzee A and other chimpanzees have just bullied chimpanzee B, chimpanzee B will distance itself from chimpanzee A and refuse to play with it to express its displeasure. If chimpanzee B happens to have food, chimpanzee A will approach and extend its hand to share. In a second-order human society, in this situation, a human might likely ignore the shameless beggar as a form of retaliation. The behavioral norm in chimpanzee society is: chimpanzee B will still give food, but will throw it on the ground to indicate its displeasure. This demonstrates that the deep-seated consciousness of chimpanzee society as a whole can override various contradictory memories.

The second example is a documentary I watched in the 1960s about artificially fed monkeys: about twenty monkeys in a zoo formed a primitive animal society, much like a primitive human society had a leader. The zookeepers scattered potatoes on the ground to feed them, allowing the mothers and their young to eat first, while the rest of the monkeys stood guard to protect them. The other monkeys could only eat after the mothers and young had eaten their fill. This was a habit they had developed over generations in the wild. One mischievous young male monkey broke the rules, always stealing food when the leader wasn’t looking. The leader punished him by chasing him away and trying to bite him. The zookeepers’ rule was to wait for all the monkeys to arrive before feeding them. This same male monkey, playful and demanding, would make the other monkeys wait for him, even having to be chased away before he would come to the feeding area. As punishment, none of the other monkeys wanted to be with him, leaving him alone. But when the zookeepers put this resented, mischievous monkey in a cage and took him away, all the other monkeys watched him leave for a long time, filled with sadness. The next day, all the monkeys were in low spirits and shrouded in sadness.

The punishment of the mischievous monkey within the monkey community occurs at a level comparable to human consciousness, with a causal relationship and similar to human rational understanding. However, the removal of this mischievous monkey involves the social whole at a deeper level of consciousness in the original society, governed by instinctual awareness. Only humans in a secondary society can suppress subconscious instincts with conscious rationality.

The vast difference between primitive societies and secondary societies is similar to the evolutionary history of fish taking to land. Fish transitioned into birds, reptiles, and mammals, a process that was extremely long. The intermediate form of lobe-finned fish, between fish and land animals, appeared over 400 million years ago, while mammals only emerged 200 million years ago. This means that this evolution took 200 million years, further illustrating the immense difference between them.

This vast difference determines that primitive societies and secondary societies do not overlap; a society is either one or the other, and the intermediate form can only be an unstable transitional form. Theoretically, a secondary society can also take the intermediate social form as its goal, thus building a stable intermediate society. But this is essentially a secondary society. Here, the role of consciousness is emphasized. When a society understands the existence and possibility of secondary societies and chooses the form of primitive society, this choice itself is the society’s direction and goal. For example, 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, without private property, and eat in communal canteens. Communist villages can be secular or religious, but communist villages organized as religions 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.

The dual structure of ancient Chinese society and its superpower status made primitive social life possible.

From the time of the Yellow Emperor and the Xia Dynasty, China adopted a two-tiered social structure, building upon existing primitive societies to create a new secondary society. This social form only changed during the Warring States period. Furthermore, because China was a superpower in the known world, without any equally powerful external rivals, this leads to an important conclusion: the Chinese people during this period still lived in primitive societies, or in quasi-primitive societies similar to primitive societies. The feasibility of this conclusion will be discussed below.

Primitive societies are genetically encoded societies, and unless influenced by strong external forces, humans have a natural tendency to form primitive societies. The following are the key assumptions established in this paper:

Under the following conditions, a primitive society or quasi-primitive society will automatically form:

1) The number of community members should be within a few hundred. If the number of members is too large, the community has the freedom to split into two.

2) Within the community, people interact face-to-face;

3) They had no contact with the secondary society, nor were they influenced by its culture or ideas;

4) There are no external forces threatening its survival.

This assumption is derived from the definition that primitive societies are genetically encoded societies, and is an inevitable result. The following arguments demonstrate that pre-Warring States period Chinese society could satisfy the four requirements of the above assumption. The following is the social model of the entire country during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

┃

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

┃

Village Family Primitive Society

According to the definition in this article, the emperor and feudal lords in the above model diagram should be considered secondary societies. In reality, they still live in a quasi-primitive society, close to the original society, because the conditions of the aforementioned important assumptions are met one by one. They are neither influenced by the ideology and culture of secondary societies nor are there any external forces threatening their survival. The following six points are explained in detail:

1) The three levels of families—the emperor, the feudal lords, and the village—all lived in the original social structure.

2) The material living standards of the emperor and feudal families may be higher than those of village families, but the one-tenth tax did not change the leisurely and contented style of village life.

3) Although the emperor and the feudal lords did not live together, they met frequently. The number of the emperor and the feudal lords was within a few hundred, not exceeding a few thousand, forming a quasi-primitive society.

4) Similarly, the feudal lords and the heads of the original societies of their villages formed another level of quasi-original societies;

5) All the above-mentioned original societies and quasi-original societies handle and coordinate their relationships according to the principle of equality and mutual benefit of the original society, and their management is based on the management principles of the original society’s leaders.

6) The ideal is to have near-zero administrative management and military conflict at the secondary social level, which is the Taoist principle of non-action.

The two-tiered structure of such a superpower was first established by the Yellow Emperor. The *Records of the Grand Historian* begins by stating, “…the Shennong clan declined, the feudal lords invaded and attacked each other, tyrannizing the people, and the Shennong clan could not subdue them.” Scholars believe that Shennong likely represents an era, not a specific ruler’s name. During Shennong’s era, agriculture developed, and people lived in a relatively peaceful environment. However, towards the end of this era, due to increased local population density or food shortages caused by natural disasters, violent conflicts arose constantly, and no one could stop them. Following the challenge-response logic of British historian Arnold Toynbee, the capable Yellow Emperor emerged to address this challenge. His solution was to build a powerful army, conquer the invading Yan Emperor, and capture and kill the rebellious Chi You, thus winning peace and stability for all nations. The Yellow Emperor’s contribution lies in ushering in a golden age in Chinese history, soon followed by the emergence of figures like Yao, Shun, and Yu, whose virtuous rule and non-interference were widely praised, demonstrating that the Yellow Emperor used force for peace. Yu the Great’s flood control efforts, organizing society through public works projects, expanded and consolidated this system. Therefore, the Yellow Emperor and Yu the Great laid the foundation for the institutions that enabled the superpowers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties to maintain peace throughout the world, which bears a striking resemblance to the peacekeeping function of the United Nations. The United Nations played a decisive role in preventing a third world war, and the permanent members of the UN Security Council are the world’s military powers.

The Use of Leisure Time and the Multifaceted Development of Civilization and History

The author recognizes that this article represents a pioneering work in a completely new direction: studying traditional Chinese culture using the thinking methods of Western natural sciences. However, its direction is contrary to the dominant Western academic thought in the field of sociology. Therefore, a section on leisure time and multi-directional discussion of the development of civilization is inserted here to help readers understand the author’s thinking.

Scholars studying early history first list certain markers as standards of civilization. For example, Australian archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe (1892-1957) proposed ten markers of civilization in 1950: population density, division of labor, management of surplus products, emergence of a ruling class, emergence of territorially organized states, long-distance luxury trade, monumental architecture, standardized art styles, writing, science, and mathematics. ①②(①See Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky, “Introduction: In the Begging”, in Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds., The Breakout: the Origins of Civilization, Cambridge, MA: Preabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 2000, pXIII.) (②Vere Gordon Childe, “The Urban Revolution,” The Town Planning Review, 21:3-17, (1950).) Such standards of civilization obviously do not take into account the multiple possible directions of a two-tiered society and have a tendency towards Eurocentrism. Generally speaking, writing is crucial to the development of a civilization. However, the vast, historically significant, and organizationally complex Inca Empire in South America lacked a written language, relying instead on knotted ropes for record-keeping and rapid information transmission. In light of this, Zhang Guangzhi proposed defining civilization by periodizing specific historical materials and facts from individual regions. This means defining civilization by comparing later versions with earlier versions. ③ (③ Zhang Guangzhi, “On the Origin of Chinese Civilization,” *Wenwu*, 2004, No. 1, pp. 73-82.) This article does not intend to explore the specific application of Mr. Zhang Guangzhi’s definition of civilization, but only to illustrate the different directions of a secondary society through the use of leisure time.

One perspective for examining the essential difference between primitive societies and secondary societies is the use of leisure time. Leisure time is defined as the time remaining after basic physiological needs are met, not the time people spend after get off work as modern people. People in primitive societies, like other animals, used their leisure time for relaxation and self-pleasure. Secondary societies organize the leisure time of their members to pursue predetermined societal goals. Therefore, civilization is built upon leisure time. If humans, like rapidly growing silkworms and Peking ducks, did nothing but eat and sleep, with no leisure time to speak of, an inevitable conclusion would be that humanity would not develop any civilization. This leads to an important point in this article: the development of civilization is essentially unrelated to human physiological needs. The world today has followed the path of Western material civilization, but this does not mean that material civilization is the only form of secondary society, nor does it mean that it is the best form on the future stage of cultural competition. The rise of material civilization is related to war; in the face of war, people can only develop material power for self-preservation.

In early societies, human beings engaged in self-pleasure activities during their leisure time, including intellectual creation, that is, the pursuit of philosophy and aesthetics. Here, philosophy encompasses the pursuit of all knowledge in both breadth and depth; the pleasure derived from acquiring new knowledge is human nature. Philosophy and art are the essence of civilization. At least theoretically, the development of civilization can be purely academic and artistic. This kind of civilizational development is itself a process of human self-pleasure, requiring neither war nor the supervision of a leisure class.

In short, the use of human leisure time can be categorized into three levels: the spiritual level, the material level, and the level of physical and mental health, or personal happiness. If we use the word “pursuit” to describe the use of human leisure time, this pursuit, relative to human nature, can have three different degrees: 1) Leisure time usage styles that do not exceed human nature, namely relaxation and self-pleasure; 2) Further reaching a level of relentless pursuit, known as work or labor; 3) This pursuit is linked to war and civilization, becoming part of imperial glory, where people often make arduous efforts at the expense of their physical and mental health, thus losing our true selves and becoming cogs in the social machine.

A nation’s and culture’s historical pursuits can exist anywhere between the three levels and three degrees mentioned above, as long as they can survive. In Western history, war and wealth accumulation belong to the pursuit of the material level; the two are mutually causal and mutually reinforcing, but they can also be separate. For example, the ancient Indus Valley Civilization and the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea accumulated significant wealth without any trace of war. After World War II, wealth accumulated rapidly without escalating into war. Ancient Greece was once divided into two major city-state confederations, led by Athens and Sparta; Sparta was warlike, while Athens accumulated the majority of wealth.

In Canada and the United States, there exists a group of people called the Amish, a branch that emerged in the history of Christian evolution. They reject modern material civilization, living a primitive life praised by the farmer Xu Xing as “farming for food and weaving for clothing,” let alone the civilization of television and the internet. The Amish seem to live happier lives; studies indicate that their incidence of mental illness and suicide rates are about half that of civilized people around them. ① (①Susan Rensberger, Understanding the Amish, New York: Alpha Books, 2003, pp. 153-154.) This is because, although their society is a secondary society, their social pursuits remain at levels 1) and 2) above, mainly limited to the spiritual and personal happiness level, not far removed from human nature, hence their relatively easy life. If the Amish had lived within the ancient Mediterranean civilization sphere, their culture, however great, would have long since perished, with no possibility of surviving to this day. With this understanding, we can comprehend the different approaches of ancient Chinese civilization and their profound significance. Despite relatively low levels of material civilization, ancient China created a brilliant spiritual civilization.

Fourth, evidence from the pre-Warring States period in my country, with primitive society as the main social level.

As the above discussion shows, the relatively peaceful social environment guaranteed by superpowers played a crucial role in maintaining the original social structure within the framework of the dual-structure system. The establishment of the United Nations after the two World Wars to maintain world peace demonstrates that humanity possesses this inherent social need. However, judging from the ancient civilizations of the world’s continents described in textbooks, this kind of political system for maintaining peace by ancient superpowers did not appear in other parts of the world. For example, ancient Southeast Asia was known as the Mandala system,① or the galactic polity,② (①Mandala (Southeast Asian history) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_%28Southeast_Asian_history%29)

②See Liu Li and Chen Xingcan, “The Formation of Early Chinese States,” in *Ancient Civilizations*, edited by the Center for Archaeological Research and the Center for Ancient Civilization Research, Peking University, Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 2002, p. 73. These all convey the same idea: like the Milky Way galaxy in the universe, while unified in terms of cultural exchange, there was no single superpower center. This kind of cultural exchange in Southeast Asia, extending far beyond political institutions, was a common phenomenon in the ancient world; China was the exception. Cultural exchange within the ancient Mediterranean civilization encompassed the Indus River Valley. It wasn’t until the time of Alexander the Great and ancient Rome that a purely military superpower emerged. This superpower did not conquer neighboring empires like the Persian Empire. More importantly, they appeared after Jaspers’ Axial Age, when various civilization systems were already firmly established, much like the United Nations today. They were merely inheritors of civilization, while the ancient Chinese superpower was the creator of an intellectual system.

Here, I’d like to briefly explain the similarities and differences between the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The *Book of Rites* lists the characteristics of these three dynasties, mentioning that while the Xia and Zhou both respected spirits and gods but kept them at a distance, the Shang dynasty revered both gods and spirits. Recent excavations of oracle bone inscriptions show that the total number of human sacrifices in the Shang dynasty exceeded ten thousand, and during the reign of King Wu Ding, as many as thirteen thousand soldiers were dispatched to conquer other states. However, scattered historical records do not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the Shang dynasty had entered a typical secondary society. According to Wang Yuzhe’s research, the Zhou dynasty’s predecessor was originally a branch of the Xia dynasty, meaning that the Xia and Zhou shared the same ethnicity and origin. (Wang Yuzhe, *Ancient Chinese History*, Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2004, pp. 424-435). After overthrowing the Shang dynasty, the Zhou dynasty implemented significant political reforms. Many scholars believe that the shift from a shamanistic-themed approach to a humanistic one occurred during the transition from the Shang to the Zhou dynasty, with the Duke of Zhou playing a crucial role. The Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods at the end of the Zhou dynasty were also a key period in the evolution of Chinese civilization, known as Jaspers’ Axial Age, laying the philosophical foundation for later developments. Although this article treats the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties as a unified cultural tradition, this unity is in the sense of reform and inheritance, and does not equate the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.

(I) Early philosophers lacked an understanding of the two-tiered society.

Most of the philosophers of the Hundred Schools of Thought belonged to the lower strata of the ruling class and had the opportunity to understand the upper and lower levels of society. Their doctrines were mostly focused on social life and political management. However, the early philosophers of the Hundred Schools of Thought clearly lacked an understanding of the two levels of society, which strongly suggests that the main level of social life in China before the Warring States period was the primitive society.

Both Confucius and Mencius spoke many things that are clearly unsuitable for secondary societies, and can only be understood through the lens of headman politics in primitive, face-to-face societies. Confucius said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead with uprightness, who would dare to be unrighteous?” (Analects, Yan Yuan). 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, Zi Lu). These words are clearly only applicable to headman politics in primitive societies. Leaders in secondary societies 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 ignored 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 conquest, believing that benevolent governance and winning the hearts of the people were sufficient for unification. In a dialogue with King Xuan of Qi, Mencius proposed what modern scholar Li Shen considers the specific standards of a moderately prosperous society’s economic ideal. ①(①Li Shen: “Five Thousand Years of Moderately Prosperous Society,” Southern Weekend, January 19, 2003.) Mencius said, “The elderly wear silk and eat meat, and the common people are neither hungry nor cold; yet, there has never been a ruler who did not become a king.” (Mencius, King Hui of Liang, Part 1) It is not difficult to achieve that the common people do not suffer from hunger and cold, and that the elderly are well cared for. Many countries and regions have reached this standard, yet unification has not been achieved, nor has war been completely stopped. Only under the conditions of primitive society, 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 people who want to use the labor of others to realize their unlimited ambitions, and the secondary society provides them with this possibility. Furthermore, Mencius’s idea of ​​ruling the world through benevolent governance requires the free movement of people, which is only possible in primitive social conditions where there are neither national borders nor the concept of household registration.

Lao Tzu’s concept of “governing by non-action” is essentially a philosophical and idealized representation of the social phenomenon of chieftains lacking authority in primitive societies. Primitive societies followed nature and human instincts in everything, which is the essence of “governing by non-action.” It should be noted that Confucianism also advocates governing by non-action. The *Analects* (Taibo chapter) mentions, “Shun had five ministers, and the world was well-governed.” The *Analects* (Weilinggong chapter) records Confucius saying, “He who governed by non-action—wasn’t that Shun? What did he do? He simply sat respectfully facing south.”

In Chapter 29 of the *Tao Te Ching*, Lao Tzu says, “The world is a sacred vessel; it cannot be manipulated, nor can it be seized. Those who try to manipulate it will fail, and those who seize it will lose it.” Lao Tzu means that the human world is sacred; it cannot be altered or possessed. Those who attempt to manipulate it will fail, and those who seize it will lose it. These words show that Lao Tzu had a clear understanding of the fundamental difference between primordial society and modern secondary societies, demonstrating his profound and keen observation of society and history. Lao Tzu himself did not personally experience a typical secondary society. When Lao Tzu says that the world is a sacred vessel, it cannot be manipulated or seized, he is referring to the unmanipulable nature of secondary societies. This is a correct inference about the nature of secondary societies and a description of the aforementioned two-framework system. That is to say, the emperor and feudal lords cannot manipulate or seize their subordinate societies; they cannot arbitrarily control them or possess them, because no one in primordial or quasi-primordial societies has absolute authority. The king of a true secondary society has real power, but is also power-hungry and becomes a slave to the power mechanism. This is another meaning of the unmanipulable nature of a secondary society.

The *Book of Rites* records Confucius saying, “Therefore, plans are made and armies arise from this; Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, Cheng, and the Duke of Zhou were chosen from this. This was to demonstrate their righteousness, to examine their trustworthiness, to record their faults, to punish wrongdoing, to promote benevolence and humility, and to show the people constant order; those who do not follow this will be removed from power, and the people will consider them a calamity. This is what is meant by a state of moderate prosperity.” This means that from the Xia Dynasty to the Zhou Dynasty, the world was in a state of moderate prosperity, where the people followed the system of rites and rituals to examine the rulers, to discern their right and wrong, their integrity, their faults, their benevolence and righteousness, and their consistency. Rulers who did not follow these principles were seen as a calamity and would lose their positions. This also illustrates that there is no absolute authority in this system, but rather a system of checks and balances.

When Duke Jing of Qi consulted Confucius about governance, Confucius said, “Let the ruler act as a ruler; let the minister act as a minister; let the father act as a father; let the son act as a son.” Here, Confucius clearly equates the relationship between ruler and minister with that of father and son. In early societies, the leader was often the father figure, which further illustrates 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. As mentioned in the article “Daoist Emperors in Chinese History,” the Ministry of Justice wanted to sentence Hai Rui, who submitted a memorial, to death by hanging for cursing his father. A father scolding or beating his son out of anger was not considered excessive, so an emperor had the right to execute a minister out of anger. Confucius also said, “When the Way prevails in the world, the common people do not gossip.” (The Analects, Ji Shi) This means that people spend most of their time living in their original society and have little understanding of the higher levels of society. Class differences are within the bounds of human nature, and people have no reason to gossip about them.

As for Mozi’s advocacy of universal love and opposition to war, and Xu Xing’s advocacy that even the king should cultivate the land for food and weave for clothing, these all reflect the influence of primitive society on them. It wasn’t until the Warring States period that Xunzi and Han Feizi gained a clear understanding of the two-tiered society, recognizing that the order of a two-tiered society could not be maintained solely by moral teachings of benevolence and righteousness, but required a system of rewards and punishments based on rites and laws. However, they both possessed a correct understanding of the primitive social form, which also suggests that for a long period in my country, primitive and quasi-primitive societies constituted the primary level of social life. For example, Han Feizi said in “Five Vermin” that Youchao, Suiren, and Yu the Great all ruled the world by solving the people’s livelihood problems; Tang, King Wen, and King Wu ruled the world by practicing benevolence and righteousness and overthrowing Jie and Zhou; while the current Warring States period is an era where military strength determines the rule. Therefore, he said, “In ancient times, people competed in morality; in the middle ages, they pursued wisdom and strategy; and in the present, they contend with strength.”

(ii) Both Taoism and Confucianism take the original society as their ideal.

In discussing the various schools of thought in the *Zhuangzi* (Chapter 13, “Tianxia”), it says, “When the world is in great chaos, the wise and virtuous are not enlightened, and morality is inconsistent. Many people seek only one aspect to please themselves. It is like the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth—each has its own function, but they cannot communicate… Alas! The various schools of thought have gone forth and will not return; they will surely not unite! Later scholars, unfortunately, will not see the purity of heaven and earth, nor the grand principles of the ancients; the Way and its teachings will be torn apart.” Daoism advocates returning to simplicity and authenticity. Therefore, Zhuangzi discusses the various schools of thought through the division of disciplines, saying that the unified Daoist teachings of ancient times, which were essentially a single, comprehensive system, have split into different disciplines, like the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth, each focusing on a specific aspect of human life. This illustrates that ancient Chinese Daoist teachings encompassed all aspects of human existence, including the natural world, the human world itself, life experiences, and the inner world of humanity. The first systematic philosophical system in the history of Chinese thought was the Daoist doctrine represented by Laozi. It did not blaze a new trail but rather directly inherited this unified Daoist teachings of ancient times. This is because Chinese civilization initially remained at the primitive social level for a long period, resulting in a comprehensive range of academic thoughts, which is what Zhuangzi referred to as the purity of heaven and earth and the unified Daoist principles of the ancients. Daoist philosophy is precisely a philosophical summary of this primitive social system preserved by the ancient two-tiered structure; it is the philosophization and idealization of this primitive social system.

In contrast, ancient Greek civilization, starting with a two-tiered society, pursued wealth accumulation and material civilization. Therefore, their philosophy began with reflections on the natural world, exploring questions such as what constitutes nature, until Socrates turned to society and human life. Reflecting on nature and society are both directions and goals, reflecting the philosophical level of the social phenomenon that a two-tiered society has specific directions and goals.

One direct result is that Chinese Taoism regarded the primordial society as its ideal society. It is well-known that Lao Tzu idealized a primordial society of small states and few people. Similarly, Confucianism regarded the era of Yao, Shun, and Yu—a society close to or similar to the primordial society—as its ideal society. Confucius praised Yao, Shun, and Yu extensively in the *Analects*: “How majestic were Shun and Yu in possessing the world, yet they did not claim it as their own.” “How great was Yao as a ruler! How majestic! Only Heaven is great, and only Yao followed its example. How boundless! The people could not name him. How majestic! His achievements were magnificent! How brilliant! His accomplishments were brilliant!” 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 beautifully; he lived in humble dwellings yet devoted himself to irrigation. Yu, I have no fault to find with him!” The following is an excerpt from the *Book of Rites*, “The Great Treatise on Rites”:

Confucius said, “In ancient times, when the Great Way operated without hindrance, and the heroes of the Three Dynasties were known to me, though I did not witness it firsthand, the ancient books record it clearly. When the Great Way was practiced, the world was a commonwealth, and people of virtue and ability were chosen to govern society. Honesty, trustworthiness, and harmonious coexistence were emphasized. Therefore, people not only loved their parents and cherished their children, but the elderly were cared for, the young were nurtured, and the able-bodied had the opportunity to contribute their strength. The widowed, orphaned, lonely, and disabled were all supported. Men had professions, and women had husbands and families. Property and goods were laid out on the ground, and no one wanted to possess them for private gain; those with ability feared they could not use them, but not for their own benefit. Therefore, scheming and plotting were eliminated, theft and disorder did not occur, and no one needed to lock their doors. This is called the Great Harmony of the World.”

This means that the two earliest philosophical systems in the history of Chinese thought, Taoism and Confucianism, both took their real-world primitive society as their ideal. During the great upheavals of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, neither Taoism nor Confucianism wanted to lose their real-world primitive and quasi-primitive social systems. Lacking firsthand experience of a secondary society, they could not propose an ideal of a secondary society, which is further evidence that Chinese society before the Warring States period was mainly a primitive society.

(III) The Five-Rank System of the Xia and Zhou Dynasties was an inevitable result of the primitive social superpowers: a universal vision that equated political territory with cultural dissemination.

Both the *Yu Gong* and the *Guoyu* (Discourses of the States), specifically the *Zhouyu Shang*, record the concept of the Five Zones, using almost identical names. The Five Zones refer to the division of administrative regions by the political center based on proximity, with the outermost zone called the Wilderness Zone. The *Yu Gong* states that the Wilderness Zone was inhabitable, while the *Guoyu* says that the lords of the Wilderness Zone only needed to pay homage to the emperor once in their lifetime. In short, it represented the edge of a superpower, and also the edge of the Chinese worldview. This indicates that the ancient Chinese believed themselves to be the sole center of power in the world, representing all of humanity, and therefore responsible for all humankind. Their culture should also be considered the original social culture of all humanity, not just a particular culture of a secondary society; only in this way could they truly represent all humankind. Equating political regions with the scope of cultural dissemination was an inevitable result of a primitive, superpower-like society.

In his pamphlet, *Unification and Division: Lessons from Chinese History*, Ge Jianxiong argues that Chinese dynasties sought the vanity of being a celestial empire ruling the world, not actual power. Economically, the tributary system did not involve exploitation; tribute and rewards were often of equal or higher value. To demonstrate the empire’s wealth, warehouses were often opened, allowing the recipient to choose freely. This explains the lack of records of foreign trade in ancient China. ①(①Ge Jianxiong, *Unification and Division: Lessons from Chinese History*, Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1994)

The material exchanges between dynasties and vassal states described by Ge Jianxiong are more in line with the nature of primitive human interactions. Ancient China’s superpower status was not that of a trading institution, nor did it represent a Western nation or people; rather, it was a cultural institution of unified humanity. Therefore, before the Opium War, the Qing Dynasty mistakenly considered Britain as a vassal state paying tribute to the Celestial Empire. Similarly, today, small, remote countries participating in the United Nations should neither suffer losses nor lose their dignity.

The lines from the *Book of Songs*, “Under the vast heaven, all land belongs to the king; on the shores of the earth, all people are subjects of the king,” in the poem “North Mountain” from the *Minor Odes*, are often used to illustrate the lack of democratic tradition in ancient China, where the country was ruled by a single family. However, this is actually a reaction to this unified cultural system, a form of human resistance to local governments. According to Wang Yuzhe’s research, before the Warring States period in China, there was no concept of a unified whole, and people lived among different ethnic groups, so there was no unified government at all. These two lines are merely expressions of goodwill, illustrating that this unified cultural system is an inherent human need. The author of “North Mountain” is said to have been a complaining minor official, suggesting that this desire did not originate from the highest center of power. Chapter 104 of *Dream of the Red Chamber* describes a rogue named Ni Er who, drunk, lies on the street and acts out. Even when an official’s sedan chair approaches, he refuses to get up, saying, “I use my own money to drink, and now I’m lying on the Emperor’s land; even the highest officials can’t interfere.” This illustrates that the saying “Under the vast heaven, all land belongs to the Emperor; on the shores of the earth, all people are subjects of the Emperor” represents the lower classes’ resistance to private land ownership and the localization of political power. However, this does not mean they desired a highly centralized central government.

At the southern tip of the Solomon Islands lies Tikopia, a tiny island of only a few square kilometers with a population of just over a thousand, making it one of the few groups studied in depth by anthropologists. Despite the influence of secondary societal ideologies and authoritarian politics, face-to-face interaction has kept the local society resembling a primitive society. Its leaders live in huts, wield little real power, yet claim ownership of all the island’s resources. This suggests that people in primitive societies do not clearly distinguish between reality and aspirations as much as those in secondary societies.

(iv) Compared with Homer’s epics, the *Classic of Poetry* and the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* embody a comprehensive understanding of primitive social thought.

As mentioned above, primitive social systems can also develop civilizations, but they lack the targeted accumulation of secondary societies. This kind of civilizational development is a process of self-gratification for humanity, requiring neither war nor the supervision of a leisure class. Compared to Western civilization, ancient Chinese civilization exhibits these characteristics. This further supports the inference that the main social stratum in pre-Warring States China was a primitive society.

The ancient Egyptians spent a millennium building the pyramids. If we disregard the pharaohs’ corpses beneath, the pyramids are purely works of art with no practical value, a result of the directional accumulation of resources in a secondary society. In contrast, the millions of prehistoric rock paintings around the world are a comprehensive reflection of the artistic thought of early human societies. For example, the Damaidi rock paintings discovered in Ningxia, China in recent years, contain over 8,000 individual images divided into more than 3,000 groups, depicting the sun, moon, stars, deities, hunting, and herding. Modern people, having experienced life in a secondary society, tend to interpret these prehistoric works using our established values, such as interpreting them as religious acts or lewd graffiti created by youthful sexual impulses, failing to capture the comprehensive nature of early societal thought. Both the Egyptian pyramids and ancient rock paintings are purely works of art with little practical value; one is magnificent, the other colorful, and it’s difficult to definitively say which is superior. The latter reflects the original colors of humanity, while the former is a monotonous creation forged through millennia of relentless pursuit with whips and bayonets. Only with this perspective can we truly appreciate the achievements of ancient Chinese culture.

Immigrant nations like Canada and the United States promote cultural diversity, but no matter how many “diverse” elements they incorporate, their diversity cannot represent the entirety of a society’s culture; it can all be summarized as material civilization. In contrast, the comprehensive culture of a primitive society represents its entirety because it is based on human nature and is a natural expression of that nature. Different primitive societies may have slightly different cultures, but these are merely differences in expression, not in essence.

The difference between a comprehensive approach and a single-direction one becomes readily apparent when comparing the *Classic of Poetry*, the *Classic of Mountains and Seas*, and Homer’s epics *The Iliad* and *The Odyssey*, which appeared in the 8th century BC. These four works were primarily transmitted orally and later recorded, revised, and supplemented by scholars, representing the earliest literary works in Europe and China, and are also works of poetry and mythology. The *Classic of Poetry* contains 305 poems, divided into three parts: *Feng*, *Ya*, and *Song*, roughly representing folk songs, literary works, and court hymns. This practice of placing folk songs first and court poems connected to political power later indicates that the editors did not intend for this collection of poems to be placed within a single system. The *Classic of Poetry* contains fewer than 30,000 characters, with a total line count within the thousands. The *Classic of Mountains and Seas* consists of eighteen chapters, approximately 31,000 characters, recording over 100 states, 550 mountains, over 300 waterways, and over 100 historical figures. It also includes about 300 animals, mainly fish and beasts, and dozens of gods. The Classic of Mountains and Seas uses geography as its framework, but it lacks a philosophical system and makes no comparisons or evaluations of the various states.

Homer’s epic poem *The Iliad*, written in the 8th century BC, is over 15,000 lines long and narrates the story of the Greek coalition’s siege of Troy, a city in Asia Minor. It centers on the argument between Agamemnon, the commander of the Greek coalition, and Acris, a powerful general, and focuses on the events of the last fifty days of the war. *The Odyssey*, over 12,000 lines long, tells the story of Odysseus, King of Ithaca, and his ten-year journey home after the conquest of Troy, focusing on the last year and a few dozen days of that period.

Early society was individualistic, so the *Classic of Poetry* (Shijing) primarily expressed emotions, conveying the individual’s various feelings about society and life. The *Classic of Mountains and Seas* records scattered legends from various regions. The *Iliad* and the *Odyssey* tell the story of a ten-year war and the return of a hero afterward. Homer’s epic poems, such grand works, were not created overnight, but rather the result of centuries of targeted accumulation within a two-tiered social environment. Homer is generally considered a wandering bard who sang for the leisure class. These wandering bards and the leisure class as listeners were two groups that fostered the continuous development of ancient Greek sung poetry. Chinese society did not have such groups, and therefore, the targeted accumulation of such grand works as in ancient Greece was impossible. The *Zuo Zhuan* records that in the late Spring and Autumn period, Prince Ji Zha of Wu visited the State of Lu and requested to see classical music from the Zhou Dynasty. Lu musicians sang various sections of the *Classic of Poetry* for him, including the *Feng*, *Ya*, and *Song* sections. Ji Zha was able to offer insightful critiques of each piece, a remarkable achievement, and thus the story was recorded. Such occasions were clearly uncommon and could hardly be compared to the style of the ancient Greek bards.

The order of primordial societies is intrinsic, based on human nature, while the order of secondary societies is artificial, external, and often backed by violence. As mentioned above, prehistoric rock paintings are a natural expression of human nature, while the pyramids are works of whips and bayonets. This can also be used to distinguish between the Chinese classics *The Book of Songs* and *The Classic of Mountains and Seas* and the ancient Greek epics of Homer.

While early societies had leaders, they lacked the strong, unified management system of secondary societies. This is reflected in their literature, which lacked the powerful, hierarchical pantheon of the latter.

First, we must point out that primitive societies could also have the concept of a chief deity. Among the many gods, there was one chief deity. This chief deity could be interpreted as a spiritual reflection of the chieftain politics of primitive societies, or as a conjecture about the origin of the operation of heaven and earth and all things. However, this chief deity’s image was vague and lacked authority, much like the chieftain of primitive societies—high in rank but powerless. The images of the Emperor and Heaven appearing in the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* and the *Classic of Poetry* are precisely like this.

The *Classic of Mountains and Seas* uses the same character to refer to both the highest deity in heaven and earthly rulers like Yao, Shun, and the Yellow Emperor: *Di*. Even more surprisingly, the meaning of *Di* in the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* is often ambiguous, leaving readers unsure whether it refers to the celestial *Di* or the earthly emperor. This blurring of the lines between heaven and earth reflects the equal status of humans and gods in early society, a spiritual reflection of the equal position of leaders and members of society. Only after the division of society into two social classes did the distinction between humans and gods become emphasized. The authority and position of *Di* in the *Classic of Mountains and Seas*, like that of the leaders in early society, is not absolute. The story of Xing Tian in the *Classic of the Western Seas* is celebrated, stating: “Xing Tian and the *Di* fought for divinity here. The *Di* cut off his head and buried it on Changyang Mountain. He then used his nipples as eyes and his navel as a mouth, wielding a shield and axe.” Literally, the *Di* personally beheaded and buried Xing Tian, ​​and Xing Tian’s defiance is endearingly clumsy. This reflects the social phenomenon in early society where competition for power was primarily limited to individual physical strength rather than social organization. Whether in heaven or on earth, the emperor of a secondary society has an organizational structure to ensure his supreme authority, and he absolutely does not need to kill people himself.

In the *Classic of Mountains and Seas*, the Emperor becomes Heaven in the *Classic of Poetry*, indicating that the Zhou Dynasty converted to the belief in Heaven. This is also evidence that the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* predates the *Classic of Poetry*. The *Classic of Poetry* frequently contains descriptions of cursing Heaven, which modern scholars interpret as condemnation of the Zhou King, comparing Heaven to the Zhou King—a very insightful interpretation. The Zhou King was the master of the earth, equivalent to today’s UN Secretary-General, while Heaven is the master of the celestial beings; both occupy similar positions in the minds of ordinary people. An ordinary person may find it difficult to perceive the direct impact of the UN Secretary-General on their life; humans are imaginative creatures, and they can connect any unpleasantness in life with Heaven and the Zhou King, making their curses undoubtedly more powerful. For example, the first poem in the *Airs of the States*, “The Cypress Boat,” contains the repeated lines, “Mother, Heaven, why do you not understand people?” Clearly, this equates the mother with Heaven in the curse. The daughter should know why her mother is not understanding her; by cursing Heaven, this lack of understanding is emphasized to an incomprehensible degree. It is a way of expressing one’s inability to accept reality by using the sky as a metaphor.

The *Chinese History: Pre-Qin Volume*, edited by Liu Baocai et al., presents the verses in the *Classic of Poetry* that criticize Heaven as evidence of the wavering of religious thought at the end of the Western Zhou Dynasty, which may not be appropriate. ①(①Liu Baocai, *Chinese History: Pre-Qin Volume*, Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2001, p. 125) Sima Qian wrote in *Records of the Grand Historian: Biographies of Qu Yuan and Jia Yi*, “Heaven is the beginning of man… When man is in dire straits, he returns to his origin; therefore, when weary and exhausted, he never fails to call upon Heaven.” Poems such as “Rain Without Order,” “Summoning the Sun (with the Sun above and the Sun below),” and “Looking Up” all begin with a call to Heaven before the entire poem satirizes worldly affairs. This is a return to the belief in Heaven, but this Heaven is like the headman of the original society and the parents of the family—it can be complained about and criticized. This criticism cannot eliminate the parents who are the foundation of man, nor can it remove Heaven as the beginning of man. On the contrary, the king could not always be criticized. Before the Warring States period in China, there were many examples of people being killed for advising the king, but there were no examples like those in ancient Greece where people were executed for blasphemy. Ancient Chinese beliefs in Heaven and God remained at the primitive stage of society and were not deified by the hierarchical system of a two-tiered society, because a typical two-tiered society did not exist in China at that time.

Ancient Greek mythology, based on Homer’s epics, possesses a strict hierarchical system, undoubtedly a reflection of the two-tiered social class system in the human spirit. Ancient Greece created a large group of gods who obeyed Zeus, the chief god. The offspring of gods and humans were heroes, equivalent to kings of city-states. These heroes commanded warriors composed of commoners, below whom were slaves. Thus, from Zeus to the slaves, there were already five ranks. In the Iliad, the warriors commanded by the hero Achilles were transformed ants, signifying their large numbers and blind obedience in arduous battle. That is to say, in Homer’s poetry, even the warriors and citizens at the main level of the second-tier society lost their inherent human significance, becoming merely cogs or ants in the social machine.

As mentioned above, the transition from a primitive society to a secondary society is like a fish emerging from the water, entering a completely different world. The unmanipulable nature of secondary societies is even more pronounced in their early stages of development, making society seem incomprehensible to humans. The Trojan War, as described in the Iliad, was triggered by the displeasure of the god of discord for not being invited to the assembly of the gods. Moreover, this ten-year-long war, which resulted in the deaths of millions, was entirely orchestrated by the gods; the armies operated like two groups of puppets manipulated by the gods. A god’s slightest displeasure could lead to immense disasters, such as when a Greek warrior killed a hare, leading to the martyrdom of the daughter of the Greek commander-in-chief; after the Greek army entered Troy, a minor officer dragged down the statue of Athena, causing a massive storm on their way home, resulting in the entire Greek army being swallowed by the waves. These are all reflections of the power dynamics of secondary societies on the human spiritual level, not found in the *Classic of Poetry* or the *Classic of Mountains and Seas*.

Another characteristic of Homer’s epics and ancient Greek mythology is the placement of the idea of ​​predetermined and irresistible fate above all else, or the view that this idea is the true religious belief of ancient Greece. While both ancient Greece and China had traditions of divination to predict the future, only ancient Greece placed such a high degree of importance on the inevitability of fate. The deaths of Achilles and Hector, two heroes in the Trojan War, were repeatedly foreshadowed, and both firmly believed in the immutability of fate, bravely facing the prophetic ending. Here, we mention the story of the ancient Greek tragedy *Oedipus the King*: In his youth, Oedipus was tormented by a prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. To avoid this prophetic fate, he resolutely abandoned his comfortable court life, left his parents, and embarked on a life of wandering. During his wanderings, he accidentally killed someone in a fight, only to later learn that the deceased was the local king. Because Oedipus had correctly solved the riddle of the monster, the citizens hailed him as the next king, and he married the widow of the deceased king. Years later, he learned that the king he killed was his biological father, and the wife he married was his biological mother. It turned out that the parents he had left were merely his adoptive parents. He wandered to the ends of the earth to escape his fate, but instead found himself facing it head-on. This convoluted prophetic story is representative of many ancient Greek prophetic tales about fate, all of which repeatedly demonstrate that fate, no matter how tragic, is unavoidable; no matter how tortuous, fate will ultimately be fulfilled. This reflects the incomprehensibility of early secondary societies in the face of human beings, yet their powerful influence and trampling on everyone’s life; it is the weak and powerless lament of an individual entering a secondary society for the first time. ①(①Li Yousheng: A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism, pp. 305-317) Ancient China did not have a typical secondary society, and therefore could not have had such an experience. Thus, the *Classic of Poetry* and the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* contain no thought of such powerlessness in the face of the social machine.

Social morality and values ​​are complex issues, which will not be discussed in detail here. Both primitive and secondary societies possess their own moral and value orientations; the former is based on human nature, while the latter is based on the direction of societal construction. Here, we will distinguish Homeric epics from Chinese classics like the *Classic of Poetry* and the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* by the presence or absence of values ​​that clearly contradict basic human nature. Ancient Greek civilization, represented by Athens, primarily produced goods such as wine, olive oil, and silver; its developed commerce was a direct result. Commerce fostered a culture of free individuals and wealth accumulation, while internal democratic systems drove the search for external sources of wealth, namely, war and plunder.

The Trojan War in the Iliad was essentially a war of plunder, ending with scenes of children being killed and women, including the queen of the defeated nation, being taken away as spoils. The entire poem is filled with praise for wartime plunder and detailed descriptions of the distribution of spoils. The conflict between the hero Achilles and the commander of the Greek coalition forces is the main thread of the story, stemming from the distribution of the plundered women. This reduction of noble human emotions like love to mere spoils distributed under bayonets is something that primitive societies could never have achieved. While hungry people in primitive societies might attack their neighbors for food, they usually used sneak attacks to minimize conflict and casualties. This desperate act of sneak attack is entirely different from the blatant and open plunder of ancient Greece. The former doesn’t appear in works like the Book of Songs; instead, the Book of Songs is filled with condemnations of various immoral acts. The latter, however, becomes a theme celebrated in lengthy epics. A culture of wartime plunder that violates human nature cannot be built in a short time. Aristotle wrote extensively about the legitimacy of slavery and the plunder of slaves through war, demonstrating that Greek culture had strayed far from natural humanity.

One of humanity’s inherent instincts is to refrain from killing. To portray the indiscriminate killing of innocents positively and imbue it with poetic beauty is certainly not a characteristic of primitive societies. In the *Odyssey*, Odysseus, the protagonist, participates in the Trojan War and is absent for twenty years, his fate unknown. Due to the prominent status of Odysseus’s family, a large group of men pursue his wife. Upon his return, Odysseus disguises himself as a stranger and, after winning an archery contest with these suitors, shoots them one by one while they are defenseless. Odysseus’s wife’s ability to remain faithful to her husband for twenty years in the face of such a large group of suitors—this pushing of chastity to an alarming level—is also a product of a secondary society. The *Iliad*, on the other hand, describes the abduction of Helen, his wife who eloped ten years ago, and their reunion, showing no regard for female chastity. Therefore, the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey* represent different stages of cultural development, with the *Odyssey* clearly appearing later. The *Classic of Poetry* and the *Classic of Mountains and Seas* do not contain such excessively detailed descriptions that violate human nature.

(V) A Comparison of Confucius and Socrates: Different Social Circumstances Shape Different People and Different Philosophical Approaches

Confucius and Socrates are considered the fathers of Eastern and Western ethics, respectively, and were the first philosophers in China and ancient Greece to use reason to study society and morality. Socrates was born nine years after Confucius’ death. Both made a living by teaching and left no written records; their works are passed down entirely through the recollections of their students. Due to the passage of time, these recollections are so numerous as to be almost unreliable. Generally speaking, Confucius’ *Analects* and Socrates’ courtroom debates are the most credible. This article primarily uses these two texts to discuss the imprints that different societies left on their academic thought and lives.

Socrates’ greatest contribution was his Socratic method of discernment, while Confucius’s greatest contribution was his *Analects* and Confucianism, centered on benevolence and righteousness. Socrates’ most important contribution to Western thought was his method of discernment, or the method of questioning. He used a series of questions to help people judge whether a belief or moral concept was tenable. In this process, he constantly eliminated seemingly reasonable but actually flawed assumptions. This method is considered the foundation of modern science; science begins with assumptions and seeks truth in this way. Socrates’ method of discernment reflects the pragmatic spirit needed to solve problems in a secondary society moving towards a predetermined goal. It also reflects the good intentions of people living in an early secondary society, facing numerous possibilities and social instability, in seeking ultimate truth. In contrast to Socrates’ objective scientific attitude, Confucius considered the inner and outer worlds as a unified whole, a so-called holistic way of thinking about the unity of heaven and man. Therefore, Yu Dan allows for the following interpretation of the *Analects*:

The Analects teaches us the simplest things. Its true essence lies in showing us how to live the kind of joy our hearts crave. In short, the Analects teaches us how to find inner happiness, adapt to daily life, and find our personal place in modern society. ①(①See Ju Xi, “National-Level Academic Garbage: Shameless ‘Insights’—A Critique of Yu Dan’s Analects Insights (Volume 4) and Comments with Fan Peng and Chen Ming,” May 8, 2008, http://confucius2000.com/admin/list.asp?id=3623)

Today, Yu Dan’s so-called true meaning of spiritual happiness falls within the scope of religion and psychological counseling, and has nothing to do with philosophers. Socrates’s pre-trial defense is no different from what people in similar situations today would say. He even said that a person’s dying words have power, and he wished to use this power to wish those who sentenced him to death an even worse end. It is clear that Socrates, like modern people, lived in a secondary society. Only the original society in which Confucius lived had one person handling social management, philosophy, religion, psychological counseling, teaching, and life guidance. As for the direct development of Confucius’s doctrine of benevolence and righteousness into the original social management system, this will be discussed in detail in section (VIII).

Confucius’s lifelong pursuit was to restore the original social order, while Socrates’s was to seek truth. A two-tiered society is a society as a whole pursuing its goal. China’s two-frame structure social model requires a separation between upper and lower levels. Except for taxation and occasional military service, the original village families were separated from the quasi-original society of the feudal lords and the emperor. This was to prevent the emergence of a two-tiered society composed of free individuals at the transition level, as the emergence of such a typical two-tiered society would threaten the existence of both the original and quasi-original societies. Lao Tzu advocated that the best government is not perceived by its people (Chapter 17 of the *Tao Te Ching*), while Confucius said, “When the Way prevails in the world, the common people do not discuss matters” (*Analects*, Ji Shi). These statements indirectly support the inference of separation between upper and lower levels in the two-frame structure, and are also the connotation of the aforementioned social model. In this two-frame structure with separation between upper and lower levels, Confucius belonged to the upper level; when society had problems, they had a responsibility to help solve them. Furthermore, in the original society, when society had problems, everyone had a responsibility to help solve them. Therefore, when the society in which Confucius lived encountered major problems that were difficult to solve, Confucius devoted his entire life to addressing them. Physical labor was not Confucius’s concern. Although he came from a poor background and was skilled in many menial tasks, he clearly looked down on physical labor and was ridiculed as “not diligent in physical labor and not knowing the five grains.”

Socrates lived in a typical secondary society, where social management was irrelevant to him. He believed his nature was unsuitable for politics. He was divinely ordained as the wisest man, and he used his wisdom to pursue truth. He rigorously examined himself and others, declaring that an unexamined life is not worth living. This attitude was very popular with young people, who always surrounded him. In short, he was a free citizen of the city-state, and after fulfilling his personal civic duties, his life belonged to him. Socrates possessed the pragmatism of modern Westerners; although his main energy was devoted to philosophy and the pursuit of truth, teaching young people, he also participated in several wars, fighting bravely. He was a stonemason; some say he never charged his students, yet still made a living as a stonemason, and some of the stone sculptures in Athens are his work. Socrates’ attitude towards life was vastly different from that of Confucius.

Confucius and Socrates held drastically different attitudes toward religion and deities. Socrates, accused of atheism in his courtroom debates, was in fact a staunch believer. According to Plato’s later account, Socrates’ religious beliefs were more rational than those of the Athenian populace at the time. His concept of God shared similarities with the Daoist Dao and the Confucian concept of Heaven. Confucius, however, adopted a very practical attitude toward religion and deities: respecting spirits and gods but keeping them at a distance, avoiding discussions of supernatural phenomena. Confucius and Socrates were very similar in their understanding of society and human life, their knowledge of religious deities, and their high regard for morality. Their drastically different attitudes toward religion and deities stemmed from the different traditions of their respective societies. Generally speaking, in early societies, religious belief was primarily focused on the individual and family, with societal religious activities playing a secondary role. This relaxed atmosphere in early societies allowed Confucius to adopt a practical approach to religion. Socrates’ unwavering dedication to his faith was entirely a product of a secondary society. While primitive societies might have had instances of funerary sacrifice and divine intervention, this is fundamentally different from Socrates’ conscious commitment to his beliefs. The order of primitive societies stemmed from the deep-seated consciousness of the people, while the order of secondary societies is artificial, externally imposed. In early civilizations, people often relied on the authority of the gods, as was the case in ancient Greece. Socrates’ free thought jeopardized divine faith and social stability, thus warranting his execution.

(vi) Ancient China lacked a two-tiered social mechanism for social operation.

The preceding discussion has already addressed the lack of a two-tiered social directional ideological system and corresponding culture in China. This illustrates that ancient China lacked a social mechanism to organize the entire society towards a common goal, which here refers to objectives beyond the system’s security and stability, such as wealth accumulation and territorial expansion.

The practice of exchanging tribute and one-tenth of taxes for the protection of a superpower was the essence of state construction in pre-Warring States China. This superpower’s protective function relied on a balance of power between the dynasty and the various vassal states, as well as mutual trust in personal interactions. The dynasty’s power was greater than that of the vassal states, and the combined power of several vassal states was greater than that of the dynasty—this was a system of power balance. Human nature, as the primary guiding force for self-adjustment after imbalance, was a powerful buffer in maintaining this system’s equilibrium. Just as primitive societies used public condemnation for wrongdoing, this binary structural system also used public condemnation to curb wrongdoing. This, along with occasional, practical military conquest, could target the same wrongdoing. As for what constituted wrongdoing, it was primarily based on human nature—the will of the people. This will of the people was not the will of the people as instilled by modern culture, but rather the innate will of the people. Therefore, this primitive superpower had the function of ensuring its own security and stability, but it was difficult to accommodate other objectives.

The culture of wealth accumulation controls the means of production within a social mechanism controlled by a minority, encompassing the entire population. An individual cannot survive outside this existing social mechanism. Ancient Chinese society was different. People’s livelihoods at that time relied on agriculture and hunting/gathering. The population was sparse, and there was much wasteland, making absolute control of land impossible. Ancient China did not establish a mechanism for controlling society through the control of the means of production. According to Wang Yuzhe’s research, from the Xia and Shang dynasties to the Western Zhou dynasty, the concept of a state existed only as a point, not a whole. Minority ethnic groups resided freely between the states ruled by the Han Chinese. ①(①Wang Yuzhe, *Ancient Chinese History*, Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2004). Both the Xia and Shang dynasties moved their capitals multiple times, and Chinese agriculture, being extensive and based on slash-and-burn methods, also required constant migration. It is estimated that migration among farmers was likely widespread during the Western Zhou dynasty. Mencius’s advocacy of benevolent governance and ruling the world demonstrates that the people of ancient China indeed had the freedom to move and choose their king. If they were unhappy living in one vassal state, they would move to a neighboring state. King Li of Zhou attempted to nationalize the mountains and forests, much like a modern state, possibly by trying to establish a mechanism to control society through the control of the means of production. However, this ultimately led to his annihilation.

Zeng Shen, who lived in the early Warring States period, said in the *Book of Rites* (specifically, the *Great Learning* chapter): “Therefore, the superior man first cultivates virtue. With virtue, there are people; with people, there is land; with land, there is wealth; with wealth, there is use.” He clearly stated that the nation’s financial resources primarily depended on the people who supported the monarch’s virtuous rule. Land could only be considered national land if it was occupied and cultivated by the people; otherwise, wasteland that could be occupied by foreigners or other ethnic groups at any time could not be considered national territory. This is similar to the tribal politics of early societies, where popular support was everything, and property and land were not of great importance.

Another mechanism for controlling a society’s population is military power, which uses killing to force obedience and create a social mechanism that seeks unified action. In this system of power balance, there is a hierarchical system of checks and balances. Military power can deal with threats to survival, such as barbarian invasions and natural disasters. However, it is difficult to organize a population to pursue other goals because this system lacks corresponding social mechanisms. King You of Zhou deposed his crown prince, who then complained to his maternal grandfather, resulting in the fall of the capital and the king’s execution. This shows that the king’s military power exists within a system of checks and balances, not absolute power. Modern armies are built on a hierarchical system of absolute obedience from soldiers, squad leaders, platoon leaders, company commanders, battalion commanders, brigade commanders, and division commanders. This cannot be established in a short time because strict discipline is not innate but a product of culture. Ancient China did not establish such a system.

We must recognize that both social mechanisms that control populations through the control of data and military force that uses killing as a primary means can force people to deviate from the guidance of humanity. In the absence of such mechanisms, the two-framework structure ensures that interpersonal interactions are limited to face-to-face interactions and the principles of equality and reciprocity, allowing humanity to freely manifest itself and demonstrating its powerful social force: stabilizing the original social form and resisting the emergence of a secondary society. In other words, the lack of social mechanisms controlling large populations and the original social structure of the two-framework structure are mutually reinforcing and causally related.

The conclusion is that ancient China lacked both mechanisms for controlling society through the means of production and mechanisms for controlling the entire population through military power, making it impossible to undertake large-scale, long-term engineering projects like the Egyptian pyramids. This can be explained by the limitations of the development of productive forces. While China had mastered metallurgy, according to the renowned anthropologist Zhang Guangzhi, from the Xia and Shang dynasties to the Western Zhou dynasty, China used wood, stone, bone, and shell as materials to make agricultural tools; China had long mastered ceramic firing; and from the Xia and Shang dynasties to the Western Zhou dynasty, China used earthen mounds to build city walls. (Zhang Guangzhi, “On the Origin of Chinese Civilization,” *Wenwu*, 2004, No. 1, pp. 73-82). Not to mention the housing of the people; decades ago, most Chinese farmers still lived in earthen houses, while agricultural tools, city walls, and housing were all related to survival. China at that time lacked the social mechanisms to promote metallurgy and brick-making to large-scale production because those were goals outside the system’s own security and stability.

The only exception is Yu the Great’s flood control efforts. The author speculates that this was likely due to earthquakes or other reasons that blocked the original river channels, and new channels had not yet formed, resulting in floods every summer. These annual floods mobilized the entire population, representing a direct threat to survival, thus becoming a goal within the realm of safety and stability. Even so, this flood control process clearly accelerated the centralization of power, leading to the establishment of the first dynasty. ①(①Li Yousheng, *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism*, 2006, p. 86)

Regarding comparisons with other civilizations, I will cite the arguments of a foreign scholar, Anderson, who divides the paths to statehood into advanced cultural models and the path from tribes to political authority. The former includes the four ancient civilizations: Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China; the latter includes kingdoms established by the Iron Age Celts or Germanic barbarians. Among the four ancient civilizations, China is clearly an exception. Anderson primarily compares the Shang and Zhou dynasties with the other three of the four ancient civilizations to discuss the characteristics of ancient Chinese states. Agricultural technology remained at a level close to the Neolithic Age, relatively simple, lacking irrigation systems like those in Mesopotamia and the Indus River Valley, and unlike the Egyptian basin, it did not utilize the annual floods for irrigation. Ancient China had a significantly lower level of urbanization, and commerce was underdeveloped. China seems to have never been involved in conquest, diplomacy, or commerce between states, only interacting with neighboring barbarian tribes. Wars demonstrating its power were only on the scale of Bronze Age chariots, and not large in scale. Slavery was limited, and slaves were used in households; it is impossible to consider it a slave society. ①(① Anderson/Sheng Qinwenzhong, trans., The Origins of the Ancient Chinese State, Twenty-First Century, No. 58, April 2000.) Anderson’s descriptions all illustrate the lack of an effective social mechanism for the operation of a two-tiered society in ancient China.

Some argue that the criteria for the emergence of a state are the existence of classes or strata and the establishment of a coercive power system. ② (Li Xueqin, ed., *Studies on Ancient Chinese Civilization and the Formation of the State*, Kunming: Yunnan People’s Publishing House, 1997, p. 7) The existence of classes in ancient China was mainly the result of a balance between superpowers and a dual-structure system at all levels. The coercive power of governments at all levels was not great, so the scale of agriculture, cities, commerce, and warfare was not large.

(vii) Military conflicts in ancient China were similar to violent conflicts in primitive societies, while Western civilization has been a civilization of escalating warfare from the very beginning.

Due to the aforementioned characteristics of a superpower and a dual-structure society, my country’s long-term military conflicts exhibit features reminiscent of primitive social violence. Prehistoric humans, when threatened with survival, might also attack their neighbors in small-scale raids, often driven by hunger. When conflicts arose between two groups that could not be resolved through other means, prehistoric humans also settled matters through ritualistic battles. These battles allowed both sides to display courage and emotion, resulting in injuries that were mostly minor and rarely fatal. Because violence is not a fundamental aspect of humanity, but rather a peripheral potential that emerges under certain circumstances, hunger and conflict could lead to violent clashes, but they were also more likely to be resolved peacefully. Such violent conflicts remained at the level of isolated incidents, constrained by human nature. Therefore, throughout millions of years of human history, these conflicts neither escalated nor increased in frequency. The renowned historian Huang Renyu described the wars of the Spring and Autumn Period in my country as aristocratic wars, stating: “The chariot warfare of the Spring and Autumn Period was a kind of aristocratic warfare. Sometimes, both sides viewed it as a competition, with certain procedures for deployment and generally accepted principles for intersections, meaning they were still bound by etiquette. Not acting selfishly was the general trend at the time.”¹(¹Huang Renyu, *Talking About History on the Banks of the Hudson River*. Taipei: Times, 1989.) In short, their wars were still constrained by human nature. The wars of the Warring States Period truly possessed the characteristics of secondary social warfare; the wars were for establishing a power politics unrelated to human nature, political conflicts arising from different social orientations. Therefore, the fact that Duke Xiang of Song, during his war with the State of Chu, still adhered to etiquette during the Warring States Period was ridiculed.

As Anderson mentioned above, China seems to have never been involved in conquest, diplomacy, or commerce between states, only interacting with neighboring barbarian tribes. The wars demonstrating its power were limited to the scale of Bronze Age chariot warfare. During the Shang, Western Zhou, and Spring and Autumn periods, soldiers and farmers were interdependent; commoners served as soldiers, while non-commoners did not. The truly regular military force consisted only of the Tiger Guard (偾� … In contrast to Homer’s description of the Trojan War, in which the defeated people were taken as slaves and transported away by ship, the Records of the Grand Historian, in the chapters on Xia and Yin, states that when the Shang dynasty destroyed the Yin, “Tang enfeoffed the descendants of Xia, and the Zhou dynasty enfeoffed them in Qi.” When the Zhou dynasty destroyed the Shang, “they enfeoffed Wu Geng, the son of Lu Fu, to continue the sacrifices of the Yin dynasty and ordered him to implement the policies of Pan Geng. The people of Yin were greatly pleased.”

The above explains that due to the dual-structure of a superpower, ancient China was able to live within a primitive and quasi-primitive society. A secondary society composed of free individuals could only emerge slowly, and this situation was not completely broken until the Warring States period. Western civilization originated from Mediterranean civilization, including the Middle East, North Africa, and Greece and Rome. From the outset, it was characterized by commerce and wealth accumulation. Existing family structures were broken down, especially in Mesopotamia and ancient Greece, where free individuals formed city-states located along rivers and coasts, becoming hubs for transportation and commercial exchange. In this context, war was no longer the violent conflict of primitive societies constrained by human nature, nor a way to resolve disputes under conditions of equality; its purpose was the plunder of wealth, resources, and slaves. In short, after society created a small ruling class that controlled the means of production and thus the population, the entire population became part of this economic operation. This provided the economic foundation and social mechanism for wealth accumulation and the escalation of war—a social mechanism that did not exist in China before the Warring States period.

When humanity learned how to wage war against its neighbors for additional benefits, the human world began a military competition. The victors were always the most militarized and well-equipped social groups, and the cultures that defied the constraints of human nature. At this point, the challenge facing humanity was neither physical nor social, but rather a constantly growing and escalating hostility within itself—a challenge never before faced by humankind. As Toynbee stated, “Humanity’s chances of survival against a pack of tigers are far greater than its chances of survival against itself.”

William Eckhardt recently proposed a so-called dialectical theory of evolution to explain the evolution of human civilization. He described his theory as follows:

Dialectical evolution seeks to establish the interrelationship between civilization, empire, and war, suggesting that the interaction among these three leads to positive feedback, causing them to form a continuously ascending and advancing spiral motion. This is unless negative feedback is established, causing them to spiral in the opposite direction. ①(①William Eckhardt: “A Dialectical Evolutionary Theory of Civilizations, Empires, and Wars”, SK Sanderson, eds., Civilizations World Systems Studying World-Historical Change, Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press. 1995, pp. 75-108.)

Eckhard used the frequency of battles as a measure of war, the area of ​​empires as a measure of empire, and the number of notable figures included in encyclopedias and textbooks as a measure of civilization. Eckhard termed these notable figures “geniuses,” meaning the number of geniuses constitutes a measure of civilization. Eckhard’s research revealed that the world as a whole, throughout its five-thousand-year history of civilization, has followed a continuously ascending spiral, with no decline. Within a single region, there have been both rises and falls over those five thousand years. When expenditure exceeds income, this spiral reverses, and civilization declines, manifesting as decentralization, feudalization, and invasions by foreign powers. Eckhard found that in all examples of civilization’s upward spiral, not only did civilization, empire, and war rise simultaneously, but this also led to an expansion of social inequality, manifested in slavery, the caste system, class differentiation, and social hierarchy. In other words, Eckhard discovered a close correlation between civilization, empire, and war, suggesting that they are mutually causal.

Eckhard’s theories are based on the analysis of data from around the world, including China. However, his theories are suitable for my country’s Warring States period, but not for the situation before the Warring States period, nor for the world after the establishment of the United Nations.

Eckhard’s theories primarily summarize the historical processes of Mediterranean and European civilizations. This can be corroborated by the ancient Greek scholar Heraclitus (?-540-470 BC), who stated, “War is the father of all things, war is the king of all things. War makes some gods, some men; some slaves, some free men.” Heraclitus’s statement is supported by modern state theory, which posits that the state is a product of irreconcilable class conflict, and violence is the foundation of the modern order. Heraclitus lived in a typical two-tiered society and possessed a thorough understanding of its nature before making this statement. He clearly pointed out that war created different classes such as gods, free men, and slaves. In short, war created modern civilization, so calling it a civilization of war is not an exaggeration. In the face of war, everyone is in danger; there is no time to discuss humanity.

Lao Tzu also had a thorough understanding of secondary societies, and he tended to favor the primordial society. Therefore, Lao Tzu viewed war from the perspective of the primordial society. In Chapter 69 of the *Tao Te Ching*, Lao Tzu said that when two armies face each other, one should not carry weapons, nor should one roll up one’s sleeves or expose one’s chest, so that the other side clearly understands one’s peaceful intentions. Lao Tzu also said, “Weapons are inauspicious instruments, not the instruments of a gentleman. They are used only when absolutely necessary, and tranquility is the highest virtue. Victory is not beautiful, and those who are beautiful are those who delight in killing. Those who delight in killing will not gain the support of the world.” “When many are killed, mourn and weep for them; treat victory as a funeral” (Chapter 31 of the *Tao Te Ching*).

Lao Tzu viewed victory in war as a bad thing because people died on both sides, requiring funeral rites. If a nation today handled war in this way, the army would fall into chaos, the people would oppose it, and the government would collapse amidst widespread opposition. Lao Tzu’s guiding principles on war were applicable to primitive, superpower-like societies, possessing a universal perspective similar to that of the United Nations today.

The establishment of the United Nations has brought about a new era of peaceful development. However, it remains difficult to predict how long a culture of wealth accumulation, unsupported by imperial culture, can sustain this. People will undoubtedly gradually prioritize happiness over wealth, spiritual well-being over material possessions, moving closer to the intellectual and cultural trends of pre-Warring States China—that is, closer to human nature. Of course, this convergence will be at a new level. As mentioned above, different cultures will replace existing nations in the competition on the world stage. Therefore, it is now even more necessary to develop the unique characteristics of ancient Chinese civilization and contribute to the contemporary world, enhancing the influence of Chinese culture globally.

(viii) Confucianism’s doctrines of benevolence and righteousness, along with its ritual system, are extensions of the original social management system rather than evidence of the emergence of a secondary society.

If we consider Confucianism and Taoism as a way of life, neither Confucianism nor Taoism alone can encompass the entirety of Chinese culture over thousands of years. Only the complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism represents the mainstream direction of Chinese culture. As philosophies, Confucianism and Taoism emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. However, as a way of life and a social trend, the precursory idea of ​​their complementarity existed from the very beginning of Chinese civilization. Ancient Chinese society frequently deviated from its original and quasi-original forms, leading to constant violent conflicts. Those in power were forced to propose a humanistic approach of rule by virtue and emphasize the system of rites and music to correct these conflicts. Faced with these violent conflicts, Confucianism and Taoism, though different, complemented each other: the precursory Confucianists attempted to control social order and reduce turmoil through the politics of virtuous men; the precursory Taoists, from the perspective of original society, advocated returning to simplicity and authenticity, returning to the model of ancient original society. The result of the efforts of both Confucianism and Taoism was the same: to keep China in the original and quasi-original stage of society, preventing 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 the prevailing philosophy of this period was Taoism rather than Confucianism. The Confucian concepts of benevolence, righteousness, rites, and music all originated from the management system of primitive society.

Confucianism centers on the doctrines of benevolence and righteousness. These doctrines were commonly used in early societies facing hardship and division, though they weren’t necessarily called benevolence and righteousness. Lao Tzu, in Chapter 38 of the *Tao Te Ching*, describes the process of the disintegration of early societies, saying, “Therefore, after losing the Tao, comes virtue; after losing virtue, comes benevolence; after losing benevolence, comes righteousness…” Here, “virtue” is not morality in the modern sense, but rather the manifestation of the Tao in contemporary society. In short, Lao Tzu says that when ancient early societies lost the Tao and virtue and faced the danger of disintegration, people first sought help from benevolence, which awakened their deep consciousness, reminding them that they were human beings and members of the whole society. As mentioned above, early societies were a unified whole at the level of psychological and emotional consciousness. The next step was to seek help from righteousness, which allows members of society to know what is right and what is wrong. Here, right and wrong are not right and wrong in the modern sense, but rather ensure that members’ behavior does not violate basic human nature or the social wholeness of their deep-seated consciousness. According to modern anthropological research, this was also a method used by primitive societies to control separatists. They did not impose the power of social unity on any member, but only reminded people with words such as benevolence and righteousness.

Modern people, having experienced a two-tiered society, have lost the ability to resonate with these words on a psychological and emotional level. The reactions of people in ancient, primitive societies to these words were fundamentally different from ours. A superficially similar situation is this: a two- or three-year-old child is naughty, and after repeated scolding, the parents shout, “Don’t you want Mommy anymore!” The child immediately stops being naughty. In reality, during that period of naughtiness, the child could completely abandon their mother, and the child doesn’t understand what losing their mother means. It is said that a six-month-old baby, when excited about receiving a new toy, will constantly exchange glances with their mother to achieve emotional and psychological communication. The mother represents the child’s deep-seated, holistic social interaction; the child cannot sever ties with her.

Rural life in China most closely resembles the ideal of early Daoist society, and in some areas, clans and clan heads still exist. The clan head no longer has the power to convene clan meetings; instead, he fulfills his role by continuously expressing his opinions through negotiation. When internal conflicts escalate to the point of affecting clan unity, the clan head addresses both sides through relatives and friends. The first instruction is to have a conscience—this is the meaning of Confucian benevolence. If this is ineffective, the second instruction is to be worthy of one’s ancestors. Ancestors represent the entire clan—this is the essence of Confucian righteousness. In short, even without a secondary social management mechanism, people still appeal to human conscience to maintain unity.

The *Book of Rites* (Liji), in its chapter “Mingtang Wei,” records: “The Duke of Zhou… held court with the feudal lords in the Mingtang, established rites and music, and promulgated weights and measures, and the world submitted to him.” We have no way of knowing what the rites and music system was like in the Xia Dynasty and even the early Western Zhou Dynasty; the *Book of Rites* largely records later developments. We can be certain that the rites and music of the Xia Dynasty and the early Western Zhou Dynasty were closer to the rites and music behaviors of early humans. In early societies where language and social structures were underdeveloped, rites and music were a system of social communication and integration. We can speculate that when ancient people were together and had nothing to do, they would express their feelings to each other, achieving psychological and emotional communication. This communication was undoubtedly a beneficial stimulus to the nervous system, good for mental and physical health. One form of this expression was rites and music, appearing in the form of song and dance, serving multiple purposes: entertainment, psychological and emotional communication, and spiritual elevation. Rites and music began with creation; once the form was fixed, it became tradition. Like language, rites and music is a system of expression with an internal structure, not necessarily involving the use of language. Compared to law and language, rites and music are richer in emotional and psychological communication. All primitive societies had their own systems of rites and music, which played a vital role in the functioning of society. Only when secondary societies have matured to the point that systems of rites and music, along with religious life, have taken a backseat. Confucianism’s emphasis on rites and music, while stressing benevolence and righteousness, also reflects the shared ideal of both Confucianism and Taoism in viewing the primitive society as an ideal, and Confucianism’s approach of using the primitive society as a model for governing secondary societies.

(IX) From the Perspectives of Other Sociologists on the Primitive Social Superpower Status of Ancient China

This primitive social superpower is a characteristic that distinguishes China from other civilizations. This characteristic has also been noted by other scholars, but none have examined history from a humanistic perspective like the author of this article, thus supporting the inference that China’s pre-Warring States period was a primitive society. The notion of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China as the four great ancient civilizations has been accepted by scholars for many years. However, recent research and further understanding of other civilizations have provided a more comprehensive history of human civilization development, without changing the prominent position of these four ancient civilizations compared to others. As mentioned above, Anderson points out that Chinese civilization is an exception among the four great civilizations. Other civilizations used irrigation projects as a lever for development: the implementation and maintenance of irrigation projects required the establishment of secondary societies. Irrigated agriculture formed a condition for the emergence of the state, namely the so-called circumscription, preventing those dissatisfied with authoritarian politics from easily leaving. If they left to seek a different livelihood, they had to endure a huge gap in material living standards. Anderson’s observations of backward urbanization, warfare, commerce, and political power all indicate that, unlike the other three ancient civilizations, China remained in a primitive society.

Wang Yuzhe provides a detailed analysis of Marx’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production (Wang Yuzhe: Ancient Chinese History, Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 2004, p. [page number missing]). Marx believed that the Asiatic mode of production was a primitive society. Marx stated, “Generally speaking, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production can be seen as several epochs of the evolution of socio-economic formations.” (Marx, Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*). Here, “ancient” refers to the slave society stage, and “Asiatic” represents the primitive society stage.

Marx clearly categorized ancient Chinese society as primitive society, or what the author of this article calls the primordial society. This view of classifying pre-Warring States Chinese society as primitive is not isolated among Chinese scholars. Wang Yuzhe stated, “In early discussions, many Chinese scholars held this view. A few scholars in Japan and India also held this position. Later, after years of discussion in the academic community, this view was no longer valued by scholars. However, in the 1970s and 80s, this view resurfaced and became popular in Chinese historical circles.”

Wang Yuzhe argues that Marx and Engels, in their later years, changed their view that ancient Chinese society was a primitive society, believing that peasants in Asian rural communes were still slaves—not slaves of slave owners, but slaves of despotic rulers. Wang Yuzhe believes that China from the time of Pan Geng until the Warring States period was characterized by this so-called domestic slave system. However, Wang Yuzhe’s own book demonstrates in detail that pre-Warring States Chinese society lacked a unified government; instead, it was a society of mixed Han and non-Han peoples, and the contributions of feudal lords to the dynasty were very limited. This political situation was clearly characterized by relative independence at all levels, with relations between levels based on the principle of equality and mutual benefit. That is, there was no despotic ruler who controlled the lives of peasants. Therefore, Wang Yuzhe’s entire argument still supports the estimate that pre-Warring States China was a primitive society.

Karl A. Wittfogel (1896-1988) further developed Marx’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production, proposing the theory of Oriental despotism. Like Marx, Wittfogel believed that politics cannot replace economics, and that a political system must have a corresponding economic foundation to support it. A dictatorial ruler capable of turning rural commune members into slaves must have an economic foundation that endows him with this ability. Wittfogel was renowned for his research on Oriental history, and his findings indicated that the implementation of large-scale irrigation systems led to the emergence of such dictatorial rulers in Oriental history. He believed that this social transformation in China—irrigation and despotism—emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, accompanied by a shift from labor rent to tax rent. In other words, even according to the theories of Marx and Wittfogel regarding the Asiatic mode of production and Oriental despotism, China before the Warring States period was still primarily a primitive society.

It must be pointed out that while irrigation was widely practiced during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, it did not become so prevalent as to become a new mode of agricultural production in China. For thousands of years, China has witnessed technological innovations and increased productivity in agricultural production, but this has not changed the situation where basic agriculture was self-sufficient and the government of the secondary society primarily operated through taxation. In other words, the bottom layer of the social model diagram above remained largely unchanged. Before the 1950s, rural China was still dominated by self-cultivating farmers, and there was no fundamental difference between them and the farmers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. Furthermore, the distinction between land ownership and the right to possess and use land was not crucial to agricultural production.

(X) Johnny’s Bipolar Theory and its Neuropsychological Basis in Secondary Societies

The earliest civilization in the world was the Mesopotamian civilization, the origin of ancient Greek and Western civilizations. Mesopotamian civilization began with the construction of massive irrigation systems, centered around cities. They erected towering altars in the city centers, topped with temples, serving as the city’s patron deities and the social cohesion. These structures were not only the largest buildings in the city but also visible from dozens of miles away, becoming part of the landscape. One scholar described their religious beliefs thus: “The importance of a god is measured by the victories of his warriors and the amount of land he conquers… There is really nothing to say about heaven after death, unless you are a god. The only hope for the dead in that dark, terrifying, and depressing underworld is the hope of dying.”

Civilizations of war require both an all-powerful god and a terrifying hell for those who challenge divine authority. The massive altar-like architecture centered on the god became a hallmark of all civilizations of war, including Egypt, ancient Greece, Judaism, and Central and South America. Ancient Indian civilization and the Minoan civilization on Crete, however, differed. Their religious practices seemed primarily individual and family-based, lacking prominent altar-like structures, reflecting their focus on peace. Unfortunately, both civilizations disappeared long before the Axial Age, leaving little impact on later generations. While there are many explanations for the disappearance of Indian and Minoan civilizations, the ultimate explanation—that war-driven civilizations did not allow for the existence of peaceful cultures—is perhaps the most plausible; otherwise, they might have been resurrected. Faced with powerful war-driven civilizations, the relatively isolated ancient Chinese superpower was the only way to preserve a culture of peace. This provided ancient peoples of the East and West with drastically different living environments, best illustrated by the so-called bipolar disorder.

In 1976, American psychologist Julian Jaynes (1920-1997) proposed the bicameralism theory, arguing that human consciousness only emerged around 3,000 years ago. Prior to this, humans were bicameral, experiencing auditory hallucinations in the right brain, hearing divine voices, which were then transmitted to the left brain, where commands were executed. Jaynes reasoned that the connection between the left and right hemispheres was limited; information needed to be encoded before it could be transmitted, and language is precisely this encoded information. Medical discoveries have shown that the language center is located in the left brain; diseases of the left brain often result in aphasia—the patient can understand others’ speech but cannot respond. This increasing discovery of the different functions of the left and right hemispheres is one of the many pieces of evidence supporting Jaynes’ theory. Jaynes’ theory suggests that modern mental illness is a remnant and manifestation of this bicameralism, meaning that everyone had mental illness 3,000 years ago. Johnny’s theories are based on his analysis of Mediterranean civilizations, and he admits that he is not familiar with ancient Chinese history.

Johnny’s bipolar disorder theory unexpectedly provides a possible neuropsychological explanation and foundation for the establishment of a two-tiered human society. If we assume that people in primitive societies primarily relied on the functions of the right brain to maintain social operations, the communication between them was a comprehensive, holistic experience: including emotions, images, feelings, situations, voices, appearances, and so on. This holistic experience is specific; that is, a specific holistic experience may only occur once in a person’s life and cannot be repeated. This is similar to someone reading “Dream of the Red Chamber” in one go and gaining a holistic understanding; it’s impossible to repeat this holistic experience through other means. Humans, like animals, think using concrete images, feelings, and emotions, which is irrational. This holistic experience cannot be converted into encoded information, so before being transmitted to the left brain, it must be selectively selected and discarded, and encoded into a rational thinking system. This is precisely the change that humans underwent when transitioning from primitive to two-tiered societies.

Surprisingly, despite the division of labor between the left and right hemispheres, people who have had one hemisphere removed in childhood can maintain a largely normal life; they can still receive higher education and become champions in hockey, chess, etc. [Charles Q. Choi (2008): Do you need only half your brain?. Scientific American, March 2008, p104.] The two hemispheres of the human brain are clearly a vast store of intellectual potential, adapted to the establishment of secondary societies. People in secondary societies primarily rely on left-brain functions to maintain the operation of society. Left-brain thinking is coded thinking, utilizing language and human-created concepts and logical rules. This determines that there is one type of primary society, while there are countless types of secondary societies. Secondary societies can only be established on the basis of rationality; otherwise, they cannot function.

Looking back at religion, the religions of primitive societies and those of secondary societies are fundamentally different. Ancient Chinese religions exhibit more characteristics of primitive society religions. In other words, art, religion, and philosophy all originate from humanity’s wonder at the internal and external worlds, but differ in their direction and methods of expression, all ultimately reaching a state of perfection that transcends reality. Primitive society religions remain at this level of expression and self-transcendence, without any particular significance to discuss. Secondary society religions fulfill many different functions, from the individual to all aspects of society, which will not be discussed in detail here.

The aforementioned bipolar disorder is merely a method used in the early stages of a secondary society to organize itself towards a common goal. In the extremely dangerous environment of war, humanity needs a high degree of unity. However, the level of social understanding at the time was insufficient to achieve rational unity, and there were no corresponding laws or social structures to guarantee it. Relying on divine inspiration to generate the necessary social cohesion was the only feasible approach. This powerful objective need caused people to experience auditory hallucinations, hearing the voice of God.

In our society, only children haven’t been exposed to secondary socio-cultural influences. We can infer the original religious beliefs of a society from children’s behavior. Around two years old, children believe that everything around them is like them, with the same thoughts and needs—this is animism. They might put their small pillow next to their large pillow, saying, “The pillow wants to find its mother!”

Ancient Chinese religious beliefs exhibited a clear animistic tendency due to a lack of experience with secondary societies. During the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, people worshipped heaven, earth, mountains, rivers, clouds, rain, wind, snow, the sun, moon, stars, and so on. The long-standing Chinese practice of worshipping mountain gods, land gods, and city gods was simply a form of respect for one’s own inhabited areas, treating them as equals to oneself. It is said that when Westerners first occupied the Americas, some asked the local Native Americans to dig the land; they replied, “It is early spring; the earth is in its gestation period, how can we disturb her?”

Children perceive pillows as people, not gods; they obey needs, not authority. Expecting them to not cry when receiving a shot from a doctor is unthinkable. Similarly, the deities of early societies, like their chiefs and themselves, possessed little authority. From the Xia and Shang dynasties onward, the central areas of capital cities lacked the massive altars found in Mesopotamian cities. The Ming and Qing dynasty capital of Beijing aptly illustrates this: the city center was dominated by a vast imperial palace complex, with the Temple of Heaven, Temple of Earth, Temple of the Sun, and Temple of the Moon encircling it from the south, north, east, and west respectively. This clearly places the deities on the periphery of human society, a stark contrast to the ancient Western societies where everything revolved around the divine.

V. Conclusion: Profound Historical Impact

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the genetically encoded primitive society is the main reason for the continuous development of Chinese civilization. After the bloody baptism of the Warring States period, the dual structure of China as a superpower transformed into:

The Quasi-Primitive Society of the Imperial Family

┃

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

┃

Village family quasi-primitive society

The main difference between this social model and the aforementioned two-tiered social model lies in the disappearance of the central feudal states, replaced by a bureaucratic and reserve scholar group. According to John King Fairbank, the vast Qing Dynasty employed fewer than 20,000 officials, but had a reserve scholar group of 1.25 million who had obtained official titles through the imperial examinations. ①(①John King Fairbank, *Fairbank on China*, translated by Xue Xuan, Taipei: Zhengzhong Book Company, 1995, p. 105.) This bureaucratic and reserve scholar group was trained based on Confucian doctrines of benevolence and righteousness, and the system of rites and music. As mentioned above, although doctrines of benevolence and righteousness and the system of rites and music belong to the ideological system of a two-tiered society, they are a direct derivative of the original social tribal politics and can still appear as a unified human culture. While this facade of a unified human empire may seem deceptive, remote small countries that did not suffer losses in material exchange had no reason to object. The hundreds of millions of peasants, just like in the two-tiered structure period, paid taxes in exchange for guarantees of peace and stability. These fish that climbed onto land were very large…

They still live in water at 7b degrees Celsius. This is also the source of the system’s strong inclusiveness and integration. A change of dynasty is merely a change of the imperial family, selecting one or two thousand officials from the same pool of potential scholars.

The fact that this system has remained unchanged for thousands of years implies a weak secondary social mechanism and a weak middle class. The ancient Greek city of Athens, with a population of only a few hundred thousand, possessed a well-developed secondary social mechanism that enabled it to mobilize the wisdom and strength of all social strata, accumulate vast wealth in a short period, build a powerful navy, erect magnificent temples, and create a profound and sophisticated philosophy and culture. China, over thousands of years, has not built a similar massive secondary social mechanism as ancient Greece. If we compare primitive society to the earth, China built sturdy bungalows with expansive development space in all directions, facing little risk of collapse. Ancient Greece, on the other hand, built skyscrapers with expansive development space in the sky, prone to collapse and difficult to rebuild. The difference in wealth accumulation is enormous, while the development of spiritual civilization, philosophy, and culture is comparable. In terms of the average happiness of the total population, which is greater? Undoubtedly, the people under the Chinese system are happier.

As mentioned above, Anderson stated, “Slaves were few and used in the home, making it impossible to consider it a slave society.” The author agrees with this statement; the Chinese system lacked a social mechanism that drove a slave class. Ancient Greek free citizens were also farmers and soldiers, equally diligent and hardworking, but most owned slaves. Slaves were responsible for primary production and domestic chores. Their system resembled today’s socio-economic mechanism, where the rich, the common people, the poor, and slaves all became components of the social production mechanism, operated by the machine itself, lubricated by commerce, creating a culture of hard work. Ancient China did not establish such a mechanism. Medieval Europe lost this mechanism. Although it possessed the technology, materials, and a source of slaves, production regressed to a primitive stage. Archaeological data shows that between 650 and 950 AD, European livelihoods primarily relied on hunting, gathering, and raising unenclosed pigs, not agriculture, because during this period, human settlements were mostly forests and wastelands, sparsely populated. ①(①F. Delouche (ed): Illustrated History of Europe. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1993, p137.) Similarly, during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties in China, even with foreign inhabitants, the problem of preventing slaves from escaping could not be solved, let alone the social mechanisms for overseeing labor and preventing slave rebellions. At that time, the peasant masses possessed very little wealth and had a low standard of living; how could they tolerate a slave class with even less wealth and a lower standard of living? It might be possible for the Shang army to capture a few hundred prisoners and force them to build cities and houses in a short period of time, but managing a slave class across the entire country was a completely different matter. The existence of the slave class conflicts with the theory in this paper that the two-framework system operates primarily based on human nature. In medieval Europe, hunting and gathering wild fruits in the forest was a poetic life today. How to get these people onto the track of wealth accumulation and to anxiously supervise slave production required a massive social mechanism and radical social reforms; it would not be possible in a short time.

One of the differences between primitive society and secondary society is the different functions of language. In face-to-face interactions in primitive society, language is intertwined with emotions and psychological communication, possessing aesthetic significance. In secondary society, language becomes a tool for social communication, a means of exchanging information and unifying will and pace. Mr. Liu Mengxi said, “The best book, I think, is the kind that you can open to any page of regardless of time or place and read it, and savor its flavor. Even if you are in a bad mood, you can forget yourself and regain tranquility while reading.”① (① Liu Mengxi, Zhuangzi and Modernity and Postmodernism, by Liu Mengxi, Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press, 2004, p. 24.) Liu Mengxi used this standard to judge the Confucian classics *The Analects* and *Mencius*, and the result was that *The Analects* had this remarkable effect, while *Mencius* did not. *The Analects* and *Mencius* represent different stages of the development of the Chinese language. Confucius lived in the late stage of primitive society, which was a superpower, while Mencius lived in the early stage of secondary society. The *Analects* is a record of face-to-face conversations, interwoven with emotions and psychological exchanges, possessing a strong aesthetic quality and resembling a work of art. While the *Mencius* also largely reads as a record of conversations, it was adapted to the conversational habits of the secondary society of its time, conveying philosophical principles and insightful observations, containing information and knowledge, and no longer resembling a pure work of art. Confucius said that if wealth and honor were attainable, he would willingly serve as a whipper or driver; Mencius spoke of the noble spirit of a man who cannot be swayed by poverty or corrupted by wealth. We, living under the suffocating influence of money, speak more like Mencius, merely demonstrating that we, like Mencius, have painfully lost our original social order.

Most of the Hundred Schools of Thought in the pre-Qin period engaged in both discussion and the creation of new terms and concepts. This indicates that they had a need to create the language of a secondary society during the emergence of secondary societies. For example, the five-thousand-character *Tao Te Ching* introduced a large number of new terms and concepts, such as *Tao*, *De*, *Xuanpin*, *Xuande*, and *Xuanlan*. Even though the *Tao Te Ching* became a widely disseminated classic, many of its new terms did not spread. Chapter 14 defines new terms as, “What cannot be seen is called *Yi*; what cannot be heard is called *Xi*; what cannot be grasped is called *Wei*.” These meanings of *Yi*, *Xi*, and *Wei* were rarely used.

Anthropologists believe that apes groom each other to strengthen social bonds, while naked humans use conversation instead of grooming. Language and ritual in primitive societies also served to integrate society at an emotional and psychological level. Primitive societies, appearing as superpowers representing humanity, allowed the emergence of typical secondary societies to proceed slowly for thousands of years before the Warring States period, resulting in a unified language and culture. North of the Yangtze River, including the vast region of Sichuan, a unified language was used since ancient times. Even during the later states of Wu, Yue, and Chu, located in the Jiangnan region, there were no language barriers in communication between the states during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. This is unique in the world; it is a result of a dual-structure system representing all of humanity, with the establishment of secondary societies occurring synchronously with the development of their languages. Currently, Australia, the United States, and Canada use English, as newly established immigrant nations chose a language. This is fundamentally different from the nature of language dissemination in ancient China.

The existence of a matriarchal society is a highly controversial topic. Western history textbooks generally do not discuss the transition from matriarchal to patriarchal societies, while Chinese history textbooks treat matriarchal society as a historical stage. The author has pointed out that this may reflect the different ways in which patriarchal societies replaced matriarchal societies in the East and West. In the West, patriarchal society conquered matriarchal society, while in China, patriarchal and matriarchal societies developed in parallel, with the latter gradually assimilated. (Li Yousheng, *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism*, pp. 88-89) It must be pointed out here that a matriarchal society did not necessarily mean women were in leadership positions, nor did it necessarily mean men married into the woman’s family. Rather, it was a term for a prehistoric peaceful culture of gender equality, or perhaps it should be called a maternal society. In ancient primitive societies, the leaders were likely mostly men, but this did not prevent society from venerating women and worshipping goddesses, nor did it prevent elderly women from being the center of social cohesion. What force transformed the peaceful culture of a matriarchal society into the war-torn civilization of a later patriarchal society? The author, De Meo, argues that around 4000 to 3000 BC, the climate in a vast region encompassing Central Asia, Arabia, and North Africa became arid, leading to desertification.

“It can be seen that prolonged drought, accompanied by disasters, malnutrition, and hunger, can provide an important triggering effect, initiating a massive cultural transformation, especially when the drought is widespread and prolonged, from one generation to the next… coinciding with this climate change, similar harm to human societies has emerged, including the rise of armed violence and male dominance in human cultures, with archaeological evidence distributed across a wide area.” (J. DeMeo: Saharasia, Orgone: Orgone Biophysical Research Lab, 2004)

This emerging patriarchal and violent society was a secondary society, also known as the Aryan society or the steppe culture of Central Asia, including the ancient Xiongnu people of China. This newly emerging patriarchal society displayed enormous military superiority, becoming the master of wherever they went. They entered India, Persia, and even Europe, including ancient Greece, conquering the peaceful culture of the original matriarchal society. The Xiongnu, representing this patriarchal and violent culture, did not conquer China or enter the power center of ancient China. Demetrius argues that the Shang dynasty was a foreign culture from the northern steppes, while the Xia dynasty, like Shennong, was a native southern culture. This also supports the plausibility of the claim that Yu the Great’s hometown was Shiniu in Sichuan. However, Demetrius was unaware that the Zhou and Xia dynasties shared the same ethnicity and origin. This aligns with the original social superpower model discussed in this article, namely, that the transition from matriarchal to patriarchal society in ancient China did not follow a path of conquest but rather existed in parallel for a long period. In the two-frame structure diagram listed in Section 2 of this article, the primitive society at the bottom represents the peaceful culture of maternal society, while the feudal lords and kings represent the violent culture of patriarchal society. Compared with the West, this violent culture is far inferior and only serves the function of social police.

This primitive social superpower system in ancient China also had its negative historical impacts. One was that it limited the development of a secondary social operating mechanism. After the Warring States period, the feudal lords were replaced by civil officials, and the checks and balances on centralized power by the feudal lords were lost. The increase in the emperor’s power was not accompanied by the development of a corresponding operating mechanism. Large-scale projects such as the construction of the Great Wall and the digging of the Grand Canal relied entirely on administrative orders, lacking an internal self-regulating mechanism. If modern commercial mechanisms were used, with the government funding and hiring people to complete the work, there would be self-limiting factors such as the government’s financial resources and whether farmers were willing to be hired, preventing the system from exceeding the limits that society could bear. The weakness of the secondary social operating mechanism led to the large-scale uprisings and sudden collapse of the Qin and Sui dynasties. Historical records show that during the reigns of Empress Wu Zetian and Emperor Wu of Han, more than half of the population fled. Regardless of whether this fleeing was due to starvation or escape, a society that could withstand more than half of its population fleeing without collapsing cannot be considered a normal society. This was unheard of in primitive society, clearly related to the increase in the emperor’s power and the lack of a corresponding secondary social system. During the reign of King Li of Zhou, angry residents stormed the palace in the capital, leading to King Li’s abdication and flight. King Li did not mobilize an army to besiege the capital, clearly indicating that the army was still bound by human nature and unwilling to follow him in committing acts against human conscience. In contrast, the Taiping Rebellion occupied nearly half of China, resulting in the deaths of 20 million people, and ultimately ended in failure. Modern scholars generally believe that the Taiping Rebellion’s policies were more humanitarian than those of the Qing government, and that it also benefited from the fact that the majority of the population shared the same ethnicity. Even Zeng Guofan, who later held military power, was far superior to the Tongzhi Emperor and Empress Dowager Cixi of the Qing Dynasty in terms of both knowledge and moral character. Chinese society lacked a mechanism for effectively choosing among the many possibilities offered by chaos, let alone during periods of stability.

Chinese Society was Essentially Primary Society before the Warring States Period: Evidences and its Influence on Subsequent Chinese History

Summary: All human societies can be divided into genetically coded primary society and man-made secondary society. A study of early Chinese history shows, unlike any other ancient civilization in the world, Chinese civilization started with a super state of the two-level system, namely, the newly emerged secondary society was built on top of numerous primary societies. This system enabled Chinese people to still live in primary or quasi-primary society after civilization. A broad array of evidences was presented to support this conclusion, and its influence on subsequent Chinese history was discussed in contrast with the Western civilization that started with typical secondary society of city states. The modern world with a powerless United Nations as a platform for countries to work out their difference at various levels is pretty much like the political situation of the ancient Chinese super state. It provides an opportunity for Chinese culture to expand its influence in the world.

Key Words: primary society, secondary society, the two-level system, ancient super state, human nature

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share