A few weeks ago, I briefly looked into 16th
Century Chinese history for a future project. I quickly learned that in order
to understand Chinese society of that era, I had to understand the government
bureaucracy that appears to have been a mainstay of that civilization since
time immemorial.
Though China, as a whole and as separate states, was
frequently subject to imperial rule, the civil bureaucracy remained an
essential part of Chinese society. Perhaps this should not come as such a
surprise: the British Empire, on which the sun never set, required an extensive
bureaucracy to administer itself. China, ancient in modern, deserves many
adjectives, but “small” is not one of them. Given the land’s size and
sophistication, Chinese rulers inevitably required bureaucrats to manage the
details of their regime.
An interesting feature of Chinese bureaucracy was the
potential for anyone to acquire a position on the basis of merit. An
individual, even one with no special connections, could undergo a set of
examinations. Passing these exams would earn them a place in the civil service,
and their families a great measure of honor and prestige.
This is not the kind of class mobility one might expect from
a society subject to primarily despotic rule. While the Ming dynasty ruled
China from 1368 to 1684 (Wikipedia, 2013), the divine right of kings prevailed
in most of Europe. In feudal Europe, heritage and the graces of the nobility
determined one’s status, and that left little room for someone of low birth to
rise above common standing. The republics of northern Italy stand out as
notable exceptions to this rule.
What, then, distinguished the society of the Ming emperors
from that of Europe’s Holy Romans? Part of the answer lies in the prominence of
Confucianism in Chinese society. Though sometimes mistaken for a religion,
Confucianism is more accurately considered a moral and social philosophy. It is
derived partially, though not entirely, from the writings of the ancient
philosopher K’ung-fu-tzu, whose name we translate as Confucius. (Wikipedia, 2013) Given the contributions of other scholars to the philosophy as we know it
today, it is closer to a school of thought than a single man’s philosophy. In
some regards, it is like the Eastern counterpart of the Western tradition
attributed to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Confucianism’s thoughts on matters of personal and social
conduct are extensive, but meritocracy is an important component of Confucian
politics. Wikipedia asserts that scholars recognize Confucius as having
espoused “the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with nobility
of virtue.” (Wikipedia, 2013) The notion that “In teaching, there should be no
distinction of classes,” is attributed to Confucian writings. Furthermore,
despite its reputation of forming the strict, authoritarian relationships and
roles within families that children of Asian-American immigrants begrudgingly
endure, Confucianism allows for the questioning of authority in particular
circumstances. There exists a notion of reciprocity within Confucian
philosophy; those in a role of authority are duty-bound to look after those
under their care, and it is not considered disobedience for someone to
legitimately question authority. (Wikipedia, 2013)
For some time Confucianism co-existed with an earlier
Chinese legal philosophy known as Legalism. Legalism, according to Wikipedia,
demands that a society cleave to the rule of law. As a whole, Legalism amounts
to an authoritarian philosophy that leaves no room for liberty. However,
Legalist philosophers paint a more sophisticated picture of the notion than one
may expect. Legalist thinker Han Fei Zi emphasized the need for the laws to be
clear, consistent, and publicly known; for all individuals ruled by a society,
apart from the ruler, to be considered equal under the law; for a ruler to
disguise any paths to succession so that the law will dive society instead of
lust for power; and that the authority of a ruler is a consequence of his
position, and not his person. (Wikipedia, 2013)
Between Legalism and Confucianism, we now see a fascinating
spectrum of ideas. We have the notion of society being driven by the rule of
law. Authority arises from its role in establishing the rule of law, and not
from some inherent right on the part of those in positions of authority.
Authority is reciprocal: those with authority have an obligation to use it for
the good of those under their care. People are entitled to question authority
and to loyally dissent. Individuals of merit may earn status and authority,
while society’s rulers must confuse politics enough so that the law, and not
ambition, rules the land. It seems the ideal Chinese ruler would be an
enlightened despot who governs with an even hand, accommodating challenges to
his decisions and holding all his subjects as equal under the law.
Sound familiar?
These ideas—or variants thereupon—are some of the notions
core to the political philosophy of the European Enlightenment. The notion of
an “enlightened despot” was the holy grail of the earlier Enlightenment
philosophers, who considered democratic forms of government as useful and just
as a lynch mob. While the Enlightenment-born governments which endured, such as
that of the United States, ended up being democratic republics, the original
ideal was that of absolute rulers who presided with wisdom and compassion in
the name of the rule of law. They could have stolen the idea straight out of
Confucian texts. Point of fact: they did. (Wikipedia, 2013) These philosophers,
however, also maintained Western notions of liberty as they adapted these
Eastern ideas.
Despite numerous differences, the kind of government
established in America and other republics has much in common with the kind
Confucian and Legalist philosophies sought to create. Both uphold that the
laws, and not people, ought to rule society. They emphasize the equality of
citizens (or subjects) under the law, and that government has an obligation to
serve the people it governs.
The major difference is that, in the west, we try to
accomplish this by making the government a matter of res publica. Res publica,
the Latin root of our word ‘Republic,’ translates roughly to “a public thing.”
In government, this makes the managing of society and the law a public concern.
To use the United States as an example, a balance of power is established
between elected representatives, an elected executive, and appointed judges.
This balance is designed to ensure that the law is just, represents the needs
of the people, is properly executed, and obeys the social contract from which
the government derives its authority. On the other hand, the Eastern tradition,
especially the Legalist tradition, involves an individual ruler using mystery
and subversion to defuse ambition and ensure that the rule of law prevails.
While in the West, government is a matter of res publica, in the East, government has traditionally been a
matter of res privata, as it remains
in China today.
doesn't sound familiar…
ReplyDelete