INR - Essay

ARTICLE

The Laozi’s criticism of government and society and a daoist criticism of the modern state Aleksandar Stamatov

International College, Ming Chuan University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

ABSTRACT The Laozi expounds a thoroughgoing and sustained criticism of government and society. In this paper, I will demonstrate that although this criticism is addressed to the ancient Chinese state, it can also have some validity for the modern state of today. I will !rst brie"y discuss the metaphysical grounds of this criticism and stress that the ruler should use wuwei in governing. Then, I will examine the Laozi’s criticism of the oppressive governments that use unnatural governing through youwei which increases the state disorder, as well as how this criticism is supported by its metaphysical grounds. Third, I will show that the sel!sh desires may signi!cantly contribute to the state disorder and that the only one to be blamed for the arousing of them is the ruler. At last, I will attempt to show that this criticism may also to a certain extent be directed toward today’s modern state.

KEYWORDS Laozi; political philosophy; government; Daosim; modern state

1. Introduction

The political philosophy of the Laozi1 can be, roughly speaking, divided into two aspects: negative and positive. The negative aspect includes the criticism of government and society, while the positive aspect is comprised of all those concrete political measures that the book gives as advices to the ruler. These two aspects are inseparable parts of the political philosophy of the Laozi. However, in this paper, I will discuss only the negative aspect which by itself bears some meaningfulness. We also know that the political philosophy of the Laozi rests on strong metaphysical grounds, that is, on the teachings of Dao as the highest ontological principle, naturalness (ziran) and action without action (wuwei). The idea of the book is that the existent political society is a departure of the original condition that human beings have had, that is, the natural and spontaneous condition endowed by Dao. Hence, the discussion will !rst start with the metaphysical teachings showing the grounds for criticism of government and society. Then, the main body of the text will focus on this criticism in general and in some particular aspects. I will point out here that although other schools of thought may in a similar way criticize government and society, however, this criticism bears its signi!cance

CONTACT Aleksandar Stamatov [email protected] International College, Ming Chuan University, 5 De Ming Rd. Gui Shan District, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY, 2017 VOL. 27, NO. 2, 127–149 https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2017.1319782

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

as a typically Daoist. Then, I will discuss the sel!sh desires, which, when the following of Dao is lost, make people fall into a circle of constant satisfying the existing, as well as the emerging new desires, thus, actually, putting people in a state of constant dissatisfac- tion. At the end, based upon what has been said above, I will try to apply this criticism to our modern state and point out how far its limits can go. Thus, although based on the teachings of the Laozi we may construct a criticism of modern state, the book itself cannot o#er an applicable substitute for it.

2. The metaphysical grounds for criticism

In order to understand the criticism of society and government by the Laozi, we need to understand !rst the metaphysical grounds on which this criticism rests. Simply said, this criticism rests on the concept of wuwei. Generally speaking, the concept of wuwei in the Laozi is a reaction to the times in which the book was written, and consequently, the political philosophy of the Laozi is also a reaction to the situation in the existing society and government. The Laozi expresses a complete discontent with the existing political system and social norms because it believes that this kind of system and norms harm people’s natural simple state endowed by the Dao. Hence, the Laozi brings up its own view and criticism on the political system and social norms of its time.

Dao, as the central concept of the philosophy of the Laozi, is the ontological principle responsible for the existence of all things, but also appears to be a cosmological principle giving rise to universe. This can be best seen from the following statements in the Laozi:

There was something undi#erentiated and yet complete, Which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe.

I do not know its name; I call it Tao. (Ch. 25)2

Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the then thousand things. (Ch. 42)

Dao’s function or operation follows a pattern or a law of action which is called ziran. Thus, the ending of Chapter 25 explains that

Man models himself after Earth. Earth models itself after Heaven. Heaven models itself after Tao. And Tao models itself after Nature. [ziran]

Although here ziran is translated as ‘nature’ it should be noted that it is not the nature or the natural world as we talk about in our daily life. The word ziran in modern Chinese indeed means nature, but in the time when the Laozi was written it connoted something di#erent. It is the naturalness or the spontaneity of things, which might also

128 A. STAMATOV

be called self-so. Thus, to say that the Dao acts according to ziran, it means that it acts according to its own naturalness.

Ziran as a principle of action of Dao, when applied into life and society is called wuwei. Thus, Liu (1998) explains that ‘tzu-jan is the cardinal and central value of Taoism, while wu-wei is the essential method to realize it in social life.’ (p. 211) If we take this statement to be true, we may also expand it onto saying that ziran is a metaphysical principle of action while wuwei is a practical and political principle of action. O# course, this statement should be taken loosely because wuwei also appears as a metaphysical principle:

Tao invariably takes no action [wuwei], and yet there is nothing left undone. (Ch. 37) However, this should not be understood as a kind of contradiction because ziran and

wuwei are strongly related and sometimes can even be interchanged. Moreover, ziran also can be seen in the social and political life:

The great rulers value their words highly. They accomplish their task; they complete their work.

Nevertheless their people say that they simply follow Nature [ziran]. (Ch. 17) Wuwei is a term di$cult to translate. It can be simply and super!cially translated as

‘nonaction’ (Lau, 1971), or more descriptively as ‘taking no action’ or ‘without action’ (Chan, 1963, 1973). These kinds of translations may easily mistakenly lead us to believe that wuwei means absolutely doing nothing, a total passivity. However, those who use these translations are still aware of the possible confusion they can bring. Thus, although Chan prefers such a kind of translation, he still reminds us that by wuwei ‘is not meant literally “inactivity” but rather “taking no action that is contrary to Nature [ziran]”—in other words, letting Nature [ziran] take its own course.’ (1973, p. 136) Some more recent translations, such as, ‘noncoercive action’ (Ames & Hall, 2003) and ‘e#ortless action’ (Slingerland, 2003), are even more descriptive and draw attention to the action rather than the negation of it, and by that try to avoid the confusion the former translations may cause. Finally, Benjamin Schwartz (1985) explains that wuwei is ‘the kind of unpremeditated, nondeliberative, noncalculating, nonpurposive action.’ (p. 75)

Now, let us see what the Laozi says about wuwei:

The sage manages a#airs without action [wuwei]. (Ch. 2) By acting without action [wuwei], all things will be in order. (Ch. 3)

The man of superior virtue takes no action [wuwei], but has no ulterior motive to do so. (Ch 38)

The above statements show that wuwei is actually not the literary nonaction, and we can even see that in Chapter 3, there is another wei added to wuwei thus becoming wei wuwei, acting without action, which gives wuwei a positive connotation. So the char- acteristic of wuwei is nothing to be left undone (wubuwei) (Chapters 37 and 48), that is, when we talk about wuwei we have to consider wubuwei, and the result is do nothing and leave nothing undone (wuwei er wubuwei). Wuwei does not mean total passivity and doing nothing, but means following Dao’s natural operation so that nothing is left undone. In short, wuwei is a kind of wei, action, in accordance with the naturalness or self-so (ziran) of Dao.

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 129

The Laozi proposes the concept of wuwei in contrast to the concept of youwei. Youwei is the kind of arti!cial activity, completely independent of Dao’s natural, that is, ziran activity. It is employed by all of the rulers who do not follow Dao’s natural operation, and such are, according to the Laozi, all the rulers at that time. Thus, the Laozi rejects the governing through youwei and proposes the principle of governing through wuwei. The one who can practice governing through wuwei is the sage, that is, the person who understands the working of Dao according to ziran. The sage who becomes a ruler understands that wuwei is the only principle of governing that is not to the detriment of people’s natural and simple character that they have from Dao. By using wuwei, the ruler helps people develop and nourish this character. So, the primary agent of wuwei is not the people but the sage, and hence, wuwei is the basic principle of governing of the ruler who understands Dao, but it is not something that is demanded from the ordinary people. (Liu, 1998, p. 218) Thus, the Laozi says:

Therefore, the sage desires to have no desire. He does not value rare treasures. He learns to be unlearned, and returns to what the multitude has missed (Tao).

Thus, he supports all things in their natural state but does not take any action. (Ch. 64)

To conclude the discussion on wuwei, I will borrow the words of Liu (2009) who says: ‘Lao Zi’s non-action is the embodiment of the Way of Heaven, which is contrasted with regular activity practiced by the multitudes’. (p. 232) To this, we can add the following statement: ‘This does not mean ruling without any action; rather, it means ruling according to the dao’. (Shen, 2003, p.359–60) Hence, it should be clear that the Laozi strongly rejects the governing through youwei and demands its replacement with governing through wuwei.

At the end, it remains to say what would it mean for human beings to act and behave according to ziran and wuwei, or more speci!cally, what would a state governed through wuwei probably look like. I think this can best be seen from the famous utopian depiction in the Laozi of the so-called ‘ideal state’:

Let there be a small country with few people. Let there be ten times and a hundred times as many utensils But let them not be used. Let the people value their lives highly and not migrate far. Even if there are ships and carriages, none will ride in them. Even if there are arrows and weapons, none will display them. Let the people again knot cords and use them (in place of writing).

Let them relish their food, beautify their clothing, be content with their homes, and delight in their customs.

Though neighboring communities overlook one another and the crowing of cocks and barking of dogs can be heard,

Yet the people there may grow old and die without ever visiting one another. (Ch. 80) Whether the Laozi imagines a utopian society or not, or advocates going back to the

‘golden age’ of the past or not, are questions that can be discussed in length. However, this description may also be understood as a metaphor of the state in which people live according to their natural and simple character endowed by Dao. It is clearly shown that

130 A. STAMATOV

there is an advancement of civilization here since there are utensils, ships and carriages, arrows and weapons. They can be useful tools, but people should not be attached to them because that will make them lose their original nature. So the purpose of the sage, that is, the Daoist ruler, is to make sure that the people live in accordance with their naturalness and are not seduced by the products of the civilization which will make them indulge in ful!lling their sel!sh desires. The Laozi says:

Therefore in the government of the sage, He keeps their hearts vacuous, Fills their bellies, Weakens their ambitions, And strengthens their bones, He always causes his people to be without knowledge (cunning) or desire, And the crafty to be afraid to act. By acting without action [wei wuwei], all things will be in order. (Ch. 3)

We today, as well as the people of ancient times, who have lost Dao, abandoned our original nature and do not follow the ways of ziran and wuwei, may agree or disagree on this point. However, the Laozi strongly believes that this is the best condition for human beings because they can be free of the vicious circle of constantly striving to ful!ll their desires. Bellow there will be a more detailed discussion on this.

To conclude, it is pointed out that wuwei is a positive principle of action, that is, it is a principle in accordance with the natural operation of Dao. However, wuwei is often mistakenly seen as a negative concept. Consequently, the whole political philosophy of the Laozi is mistakenly seen as a negative theory. (Hsiao, 1979, p. 290; Yuan, 1991, p. 207) The Laozi often criticizes the existing system and norms so it can easily lead some to conclude that it does not o#er any positive contribution that its main purpose is only to criticize and show the mistakes of the system. However, as wuwei has its own positive character, the political philosophy of the Laozi also has a positive aspect, that is, the Laozi developed a concrete political theory. Actually, the criticism in the political philosophy of the Laozi is in support for its positive aspect. In other words, in order to propose its concrete political theory, the Laozi !rst must o#er its criticism toward existing systems. If there were no for this criticism, its concrete theory would have no support, but if there were no for the concrete theory, its criticism would have no meaning, at least for the author(s) of the Laozi. I believe that the criticism in the Laozi by itself bears some meaningfulness, but obviously the Laozi did not want to only end up in criticism. Thus, there is !rst criticism toward existing government and society and then there is the concrete application of the governing through wuwei. This should not be understood as a sequence in time, but only as a logical priority. However, the time does not allow me to discuss the positive aspect of the political philosophy of the Laozi so I will focus here only on its negative aspect.

3. The criticism of government and society

According to the Laozi, the problem with all the governments of its time is that they are too oppressive. The rulers govern with unnatural action, youwei, and this kind of government causes the di$culties of the people, that is, hinders people’s natural development, makes people lose the connection with the Dao, that is, lose their original

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 131

character. That the governments are too oppressive that is an opinion that may also be shared by other thinkers of the time, such as, Confucius (551–479 BC) and Mozi (ca. 479- ca. 381 BC), and probably, they would agree with much of what will be said in this section. However, the distinctive point is the ground for this criticism. Confucius and Mozi create ethics-based political theories. For Confucius, the state should be governed according to the principles of humanity (ren) and righteousness (yi), so that the cere- monies (li) will be properly carried out and the !ve relationships (those between ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother and between friends) will be properly practiced. Mozi’s political theory is based on his principle of ‘universal love,’ which will bring to mutual bene!t of all. The Laozi, on the other hand, grounds its political theory metaphysically, and more speci!cally, ontologically.

To further clarify, the ethics of Confucius, as Shen (1992) points out, has its transcen- dental foundation, that is, it is grounded on something inside the human nature. Same may be said for Mozi’s ethics. Whereas the ethics of the Laozi has its ontological foundation, that is, it is based on something other than the human being. (p. 19 and p. 21) Another point stressed by Chung-Ying Cheng (2004) is that the Laozi develops a Dao-based ethics, also called ‘onto-ethics’ of Dao, which ‘leads to an inevitable devel- opment of the onto-politics as an application of the dao ethics of the wuwei and wei wuwei.’ (p. 160) Thus, the political philosophy of the Laozi also has its ontological foundation, for example, it is Dao-based political philosophy.

I will divide the criticism in the Laozi into a general criticism and criticism of speci!c aspects of the government and society.

3.1. General criticism

The Laozi says:

They are di$cult to rule because their ruler does too many things [youwei]. Therefore they are di$cult to rule. (Ch. 75)

In this passage, we can see a direct attack on youwei. The Laozi believes that it is exactly because the ruler uses youwei (in the above translation: ‘does too many things’) that the people are di$cult to rule. This means that when youwei is the principle of governing, the ruler cannot easily govern the people and establish peace in the country. It is because the people are oppressed by the youwei attitude of the ruler so that they are di$cult to rule. In other words, when the ruler uses youwei the people resist so they become di$cult to rule. The version of the Laozi excavated in 1973 at Mawangdui near Changsha in Hunan province, south-central China, seems to explain this idea more clearly:

The reason why the common people cannot be ruled, Is because their superiors have their reason for acting. Therefore they cannot be ruled. (Translation according to Henricks, 1989)

According to this version, it seems that the rulers not only do many things, but they deliberately act toward their own bene!t instead of peoples. Therefore, the people feel oppressed and become di$cult to rule. There is no way that the people can be

132 A. STAMATOV

governed, and this situation is caused by the ruler. Thus, the more youwei there is, the more di$cult are the people to rule, or cannot be ruled. So, according to this view, youwei cannot be the proper principle of governing, and moreover, youwei is the reason for the problems in the state and people’s troubles. The Laozi also clearly says:

Govern the state with correctness. Operate the army with surprise tactics. Administer the empire by engaging in no activity. How do I know that this should be so? Through this: The more taboos and prohibitions there are in the world, The poorer the people will be. The more sharp weapons the people have, The more troubled the state will be. The more cunning and skill man possesses, The more vicious things will appear. The more laws and orders are made prominent, The more thieves and robbers there will be. (Ch. 57)

The statement from this passage that ‘the more taboos and prohibitions there are in the world, the poorer the people will be’ is very important. It is a direct attack on the government, saying that the people’s misfortune is caused by the government employ- ing too many taboos and prohibitions. In other words, the government establishes many laws and rules, it carries out too many and too severe measures; the result is that this attitude of the government is harmful to the people. The above passage shows that using youwei to govern will contrarily result in bringing the society into a state of disorder. The Laozi does not want to get rid of the government itself, but only points out the problems caused by the governing through youwei. And, the criminal laws and punishments are not bad by themselves, but they are excessively and sometimes needlessly carried out for establishing order in the state, that is, why they are too oppressive. Actually, this passage shows the result of the unnatural way of governing. That is to say, when the government abandons the use of Dao as a standard for governing, the above situation can happen. According to the Laozi, the ruler’s conduct must comply with the operation of Dao so that the ruler can govern through wuwei and thus will not interfere in people’s natural and simple character and will help them develop lives in accordance with the standard of Dao. Thus, the criminal legal system should also be administered properly so that it does not bring to excessive punishments. The Laozi believes that when the government abandons the natural and simple function of Dao, it will become a youwei government and result in an unnatural way of ruling which is harmful to people and can bring about a state of disorder.

In relation to the above, the Laozi also states:

Do not reduce the living space of their dwellings.

Do not oppress their lives.

It is because you do not oppress them that they are not oppressed. (Ch. 72) It is in the nature of the oppressive government to meddle with people’s basic life

needs, so it is harmful to them, but despite that, it is also harmful to itself. As we can see from the Laozi:

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 133

The people are not afraid of death.

Why, then, threaten them with death? (Ch. 74)

The statement in Chapter 72, ‘it is because you do not oppress them that they are not oppressed’ is actually confusing and may lead to at least two di#erent interpretations. According to the !rst, this line explains that if the ruler does not oppress the people, the people will not be oppressed, or they will not feel oppressed, and that surely can be seen from Chan’s translation. The Chinese original is fu wei bu yan, shi yi bu yan in which we can see that the words bu yan appear twice which, according to Chan, they are translated as ‘do not oppress’ in the !rst case and ‘are not oppressed’ in the second. As an example, James Legge (1962) translates this line as ‘It is by avoiding such indulgence that such weariness does not arise.’ (p. 114) And according to Lau’s (1971) translation, ‘It is because you do not press down on them that they will not weary of the burden.’ (p. 134)

These translations conform to the !rst interpretation, according to which, if the ruler does not oppress the people, the people will not feel they are oppressed by the ruler, but if the ruler oppresses them, then they will feel oppressed by the ruler. This seems very redundant and actually says nothing. The only thing it is said is that people are oppressed by the ruler, but does not say what the result of this oppression is. The second inter- pretation, which I also support, is more consistent with the text of the Laozi. It goes on to say that if the ruler does not oppress the people, then the people will also not oppress the ruler, that is, will not react to the ruler’s oppression. In other words, if the ruler oppresses the people, they will despise the ruler and resist, so no wonder Chapter 57 says ‘the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.’ There are supporters of this interpretation among the scholars, such as Fu (2003) who reads the line in Chapter 72 as following: ‘Do not interrupt people’s daily lives, do not oppress the way people earn a livelihood. Only the one who does not oppress the people will not be oppressed by them.’ (p. 224) Thus, the statement in Chapter 74, ‘The people are not afraid of death. Why, then, threaten them with death?’, becomes clearer. That is, when people are oppressed they have already nothing to lose, so they are not afraid of the ruler’s oppression and resist. When the people are not unsatis!ed of their lives, o# course they will not detest the ruler’s decisions, but when the ruler’s actions are disrespectful toward the people, they will have the feeling that it is not worth living and will despise the government. (Wang, 2010, p. 328)

The line in Chapter 72 may be linked to a statement in Chapter 17:

It is only when one does not have enough faith in others that others will have no faith in him

Applying to the ruler, this means that when the ruler does not have faith in people, the people will also have no faith in the ruler, thus the people will despise the ruler. The crucial word in this statement is xin which literary means faith, trust or belief. However, some English translations of the Laozi have di#erently translated xin but have also made the above kind of reading. For example, ‘Just because one does not annoy them, he will not be annoyed by them.’ (Lin, 1992, p. 131) And, ‘Only if you do not despise them will they not despise you.’ (Hughes, 1969, p. 163) It is obvious that the ruler must trust or have faith in the people in the !rst place, so that the people can trust or have faith in the ruler. This would be the true and the best ruler. (Wang, 1997, p. 306) Thus, if the ruler

134 A. STAMATOV

trusts the people, he or she will not oppress them, and the result is that people trust the ruler and will not resist. So, the Laozi again says:

Therefore the sage knows himself but does not show himself. He loves himself but does not exalt himself. Therefore he rejects the one but accepts the other. (Ch. 72)

The sage in the Laozi is an allusion for the true and the best ruler. We may call this ruler the sage-ruler. The sage-ruler does not use the high position that he possesses for satisfying his sel!sh desires. The sage-ruler respects the life needs of the others. The last sentence, ‘Therefore, he rejects the one but accepts the other,’ appears two more times in the Laozi, in Chapters 12 and 38. Thus, we can see that it is important for the sage- ruler to use the principle of ‘rejecting the one but accepting the other,’ which means to reject all unnatural and accept the natural operation of Dao, so that the people can attain their natural and simple character that comes from Dao and the ruler will not engage in satisfying the sel!sh desires.

It was already pointed out that the ruler’s oppressive attitude brings dissatisfaction among the people. The Laozi says:

When the government is non-discriminative and dull, The people are contented and generous. When the government is searching and discriminative, The people are disappointed and contentious. (Ch. 58)

Just because the ruler is too oppressive, the people become dissatis!ed and combative, and then ‘more vicious things will appear’ and ‘more thieves and robbers there will be.’ Wang Bi, the classical commentator of the Laozi, stresses that to establish criminal laws and classi!cations, to be keen about rewards and punishments, is called discriminative and makes people !ght and compete. (Lin, 1992, p. 109) Thus, the disorder in the state is actually caused by the ruler; the ruler thinking that people are evil uses oppressive strategy to rule, and by this creates a situation in which, according to the Laozi, ‘poorer the people will be,’ ‘more troubled the state will be,’ ‘more vicious things will appear’ and ‘more thieves and robbers there will be,’ Instead of bringing peace in the state the ruler brings disorder. The more oppressive the ruler is, the more disordered the state will be; this is a kind of vicious circle. As stated above, the oppressive and disordered state is an outcome of governing through youwei, which is the general target of criticism of the political philoso- phy of the Laozi. The governing through youwei is the reason for people to lose their original simple character by which they also become di$cult to rule.

3.2. Criticism of speci!c aspects

Apart from this general criticism of the oppressive state, the Laozi also criticizes some particular aspects that are usually seen in an oppressive state. I draw these aspects from Xiao Gongquan (Hsiao, 1979) who demonstrates that the Laozi criticizes three severe aspects of the truly oppressive government: excessive taxation, harsh punishment, and frequent warfare. (p. 295) Xiao’s division is insightful but he did not elaborate in details these speci!c aspects. In the following, I will try to examine further these aspects and wherever possible point out the metaphysical grounds of the criticism of these aspects.

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 135

3.2.1. Excessive taxation On the !rst aspect, the Laozi says:

The people starve because the ruler eats too much tax-grain. Therefore they starve. (Ch. 75) The courts are exceedingly splendid, While the !elds are exceedingly weedy, And the granaries are exceedingly empty. Elegant clothes are worn, Sharp weapons are carried, Foods and drinks are enjoyed beyond limit, And wealth and treasures are accumulated in excess. This is robbery and extravagance.

This is indeed not Tao. (Ch. 53) These passages show that the rulers impose excessive taxation on the people so that

they can enjoy abundant foods and drinks, as well as luxuries such as beautiful clothes and other things that can satisfy their sel!sh desires. Buy this, people become poor and this taxation is indeed no di#erent from robbery. That is why the Laozi says that the non- discriminative and dull government brings to contented and generous people, but the searching and discriminative government brings to disappointed and contentious peo- ple, or, in other words, the ruler and those around him satisfy their own sel!sh desires and the people are not able even to satisfy their own basic needs. Therefore, according to the Laozi, the greatest satisfaction of the sage-ruler is when people are satis!ed with their lives. Thus,

In governing, the best ruler should !rstly engage into nourishing people. When people are satis!ed there is nothing for the best ruler to be unsatis!ed about. On the other hand, when people are unsatis!ed, how can the best ruler be satis!ed? Now, to impose high taxes, and by that to make people hardly earn for three meals per day, can this still be called the Way of the governing of the best ruler? (Wang, 2010, p. 339)

The condemnation of excessive taxation can also be seen from the following passage:

Heaven’s Way is indeed like the bending of a bow. When (the string) is high, bring it down. When it is low, raise it up. When it is excessive, reduce it. When it is insu$cient, supplement it.

The Way of Heaven reduces whatever is excessive and supplements whatever is insu$cient.

The way of man is di#erent. It reduces the insu$cient to o#er to the excessive. Who is able to have excess to o#er to the world? Only the man of Tao. (Ch. 77)

Despite the criticism of excessive taxation itself, in this passage, we can also see the metaphysical background of this criticism. The state which imposes excessive taxes is not a state in accordance with the standard of Dao. Commenting on this passage, Chan (1963) says: ‘This is at once a bitter attack on corrupt government and a contrast between the government with Tao and that without Tao.’ (p. 194) In governing, the

136 A. STAMATOV

sage-ruler follows the Way of Heaven, that is, the natural operation of Dao, while the ruler who does not understand this operation follows the way of man. By following the way of man, there will be some in the world who can excessively use food and other products, but also others who will not be able even to ful!ll their basic life needs. What the ruler who follows the Way of Heaven tries to do is to break up with this di#erence, or at least decrease it; to reduce the excessive and to supplement the insu$cient. The one who can do that is the man of Dao.

This may look like a Robin Hoodian idea of justice or some kind of a socialist ideology, but the Laozi does not simply and naively suggest that we take from the rich and give to the poor. This may be related to the idea in the Laozi that the world functions through opposites. The opposites always seem contrasted to each other; however, they are not in struggle so that one should win over the other, but they complement each other. The point is not one of the opposites to prevail but a harmonious relation to be achieved. Thus, the Laozi says:

Being and non-being produce each other; Di$cult and easy complete each other; Long and short contrast each other; High and low distinguish each other; Sound and voice harmonize with each other; Front and back follow each other. (Ch. 2)

The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang, and through the blending of the material force they achieve harmony. (Ch. 42)

These passages suggest that there should be a harmonious order between the opposites. When the opposites are in mutual consolidation then harmony will be achieved, but when one of them prevails, there will be a disorder.3

If we apply the teaching of the opposites in politics, we can see that the ruler and people represent a kind of opposite. Accordingly, there should be a harmony between the two. If the ruler imposes heavy taxes and brings people to poverty then he prevails heavily over the people and the harmony is disturbed.

This is a peculiar Daoist understanding of the relationship between ruler and people. It is di#erent from Confucian and Mohist understandings where the ruler is supposed to bring the highest ethical principles into practice. And, it is di#erent, if not completely opposite, to the understanding of the Legalist School, according to which, the ruler should carry out strict government keeping the people subjugated under his power; thus, prevailing over them.

3.2.2. Harsh punishments On the second aspect the Laozi says:

The people are not afraid of death. Why, then, threaten them with death?

Suppose the people are always afraid of death and we can seize those who are vicious and kill them,

Who would dare to do so? There is always the master executioner (Heaven) who kills.

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 137

To undertake executions for the master executioner is like hewing wood for the master carpenter.

Whoever undertakes to hew wood for the master carpenter rarely escapes injuring his own hands. (Ch. 74)

The people take death lightly because their ruler strives for life too vigorously.

Therefore they take death lightly. (Ch. 75)

When people often face death, they are less afraid of it, and thus, the state becomes disordered. Originally, of course people are afraid of death, but the situation that the Laozi describes is an outcome of the oppressive rule of the ruler. When the ruler often and daily threatens the people with harsh punishments, even with death penalty, the people are not afraid of it anymore. It is not that the people are evil or disobedient that the ruler implements harsh punishments, but the opposite, the ruler is oppressive and believes that people should be repressed, so harsh punishments of course are necessary. Actually, the state of disorder in the society is created by the ruler, not by the people, and this is also pointed out by Wang Bi, according to whom, ‘what makes the people perverse and the government chaotic originates at the top, not the bottom. The people always follow the man on top’. (Lin, 1992, p. 136) Holmes Welch (1972) gives a concise explanation of this situation: ‘The people’s lives must have been made intolerable by taxes and interference. With life hardly worth living, the death penalty becomes neces- sary and by the same token it becomes useless’. (p. 28) The harsh punishments are actually a result caused by the government that governs through youwei, and that the people are not afraid of death is a kind of reaction against the oppression of the government.

To sum up, the criticism of harsh punishments in the Laozi is comprised of two aspects: (1) If the ruler implements harsh punishments, including death penalty, even though the people face these punishments they will still react. Although death is the most fearful thing for the people, once they think there is nothing to lose anymore they will rise and react against the punishments of the ruler, thus the ruler’s decision to implement harsh punishments adds up to the disordered situation in the whole state. (2) The Laozi directly attacks the capital punishment and the arguments against it are based on metaphysical grounds. For the Laozi, ‘there is always the master executioner who kills’ which is Dao itself. Dao gives life and only Dao has the right to take life. To kill means to interfere in the working of Dao in the same way as we interfere in other jobs that are not ours. Thus, no one can replace that which gave life to us and kill us.

What is important is that the harsh punishments emerge from a youwei attitude, and have nothing to do with wuwei. Taking lives by the ruler and by Dao is di#erent. The ruler who is in youwei consciousness believes that in order to rule the state well, and to get rid of the reasons for disorder, needs to implement capital punishment, but it is precisely because the ruler uses youwei and capital punishment that he cannot rule the state well. Youwei interrupts the human development in accordance to the natural function of Dao and makes people react, so that is why Chapter 57 says, ‘the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.’

138 A. STAMATOV

However, when Dao takes lives, it uses its natural function and does not interfere in the original and natural state of things. Human life is indeed limited, but when it is supposed to !nish is decided by Dao.

However, here can be asked, did the Laozi really believe that if there were no harsh punishments there would be no crime? According to the common way of thinking, we know that the punishments are there because there are crimes, so how does the Laozi answer to this question? Maybe like this:

Tao invariably takes no action, and yet there is nothing left undone. If kings and barons can keep it, all things will transform spontaneously. If, after transformation, they should desire to be active, I would restrain them with simplicity, which has no name. Simplicity, which has no name, is free of desires. Being free of desires, it is tranquil. And the world will be at peace of its own accord. (Ch. 37)

The Laozi hopes that the state will have a ruler who governs through wuwei. The transformation here means that the people should go back from youwei to wuwei state, that is, from the state full of desires back to their original state in accordance with Dao. However, if the ruler notices that after transformation had been done some people began to express desires that might lead to potential crimes, he will use the power of the nameless simplicity to restrain the full development of the desires, so that to keep them tranquil, not disturbed by desires, and then he does not need to implement punishments. Simplicity here is a translation of the word pu, and it designates the simplicity that comes from Dao, or, actually, it is Dao itself. Thus, the ruler avoids entering into the vicious circle of crime and punishment typical for a youwei society. So when the Laozi says that laws and orders produce thieves and robbers it means that the ruler is incapable of bringing order in the state because he does not understand the power of the simplicity that comes from Dao. When the simplicity of Dao is around, the people will have few desires, that is, they will not be led by the sel!sh and unnatural desires. The only way the youwei ruler thinks he can bring the state into order is by laws and punishments, but he does not realize that if the people are brought into a state of tranquility without sel!sh desires, they would not need punishments to be repressed by.

3.2.3. Frequent warfare On frequent warfare, the Laozi says:

When Tao prevails in the world, galloping horses are turned back to fertilize the !elds with their dung. When Tao does not prevail in the world, war horses thrive in the suburbs. (Ch. 46)

Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow. Great wars are always followed by famines. (Ch. 30) The state which is not in accordance with the standard of the Dao does not avoid

engaging in warfare. As Wang Bi comments: ‘In a world with Tao, the people know what is su$cient and when to stop. Without seeking the external, each cultivates only his internal quality. Therefore, racing horses are drawn back to carry dung for the !eld.’ (Lin, 1992, p. 87) In other words, when the natural operation of Dao prevails in the world the ruler knows how to be content and when to stop, does not look for contention outside

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 139

but only inside, so the horses stay on the !elds. Otherwise, when the ruler is obsessed by greed he does not look for contention inside but outside, therefore the horses are in the suburbs and ready to go to war. The ruler who follows Dao, the sage-ruler, believes that the war is probably the worst calamity that might happen to the humankind. This kind of ruler uses wuwei in governing, so the horses are used only for fertilizing the !eld, which means there is peace. The oppressive and greedy ruler who uses youwei in governing, uses the horses for warfare. The war is the most dreadful thing because it makes ‘briers and thorns grow’ and it is ‘followed by famines.’

But is it really true that the sage-ruler never engages in warfare and never uses weapons? Actually, there are situations in which the use of weapons cannot be avoided and the sage-ruler is not immune to these situations. However, he takes the weapons in his arms with deep sorrow and regret that he must use them. There is another rather lengthy passage in the Laozi explaining this situation:

Fine weapons are instruments of evil. They are hated by men. Therefore those who possess Tao turn away from them. The good ruler when at home honors the left (symbolic of good omens). When at war he honors the right (symbolic of evil omens). Weapons are instruments of evil, not the instruments of a good ruler. When he uses them unavoidably, he regards calm restraint at the best principle.

Even when he is victorious, he does not regard it as praiseworthy,

For to praise victory is to delight in the slaughter of men. He who delights in the slaughter of men will not succeed in the empire. In auspicious a#airs, the left is honored. In unauspicious a#airs, the right is honored. The lieutenant-general stands on the left. The senior general stands on the right. That is to say that the arrangement follows that of funeral ceremonies. For the slaughter of the multitude, let us weep with sorrow and grief. For the victory, let us observe the occasion with funeral ceremonies. (Ch. 31)

Here we can see that war is compared to the funeral; the symbol of the funeral is used because during funerals we can only be sad and that is how the sage-ruler feels when engaging in war. Also, in ancient times, the left was considered as a symbol of the auspicious a#airs and the right as a symbol of the unauspicious a#airs. In the above passage, the war is considered as unauspicious, same as the funeral. The sage-ruler believes that weapons are unauspicious, it is better not to use them, but when there is no other way than to use them, the sage-ruler is not happy, that is why it is said ‘he uses them unavoidably.’ Even if the sage-ruler gains a victory, he is still not happy but sad because of ‘the slaughter of the multitude.’

It should be noted that the Laozi does not propound principal paci!sm. The peace of course is the best but sometimes the situation requires that use of weapons is unavoid- able. What is important is that the sage-ruler does not praise the war and does not boast of the victory and his military valor. The dead bodies are not reason for joy. The sage- ruler tries to avoid war by any means, but if that is not possible, he takes it as an unauspicious a#air with deep sorrow in his heart. Another reason why the sage-ruler engages in war with sorrow and does not boast of his victory is because when once the

140 A. STAMATOV

war (or even a single battle) is over he hopes that it will not continue. Welch (1972) explains this point very well: ‘If our attitude is bloodthirsty and destructive, the con"ict will go on until the vicious circle of aggression results in mutual ruin. If our attitude is compassionate and sad, the enemy will sense that his hostility has not aroused a response and so, gradually, his hostility will atrophy. Only thus can the vicious circle of aggression be broken’. (p. 25) Thus, the Laozi criticizes warfare as an a#air typical for the oppressive state, that is, the state which is not in accordance with the Dao, but also allows that sometimes it is not possible to avoid war, so it regards war as a kind of necessary evil.

To conclude, this criticism of government and society is based on a speci!c Daoist idea that any ethical speculation should be based on ziran. It is natural for all things, including human beings, to follow ziran. (Point already mentioned above, Chapter 25). The highest consummation of human being is the sage. The sage understands Dao’s natural (ziran) function and in the Laozi the sage is a synonym for the ruler. This speci!c Daoist ethics can be seen from the following passage:

Heaven and Earth are not humane. They regard all things as straw dogs. The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs. (Ch. 5)

The word translated here as humane is ren, (humanity, benevolence)—the Confucian ethical principle. Thus, at the very surface, this is a rejection of conventional morality. The book further says:

When the great Tao declined, The doctrine of humanity and righteousness arose. When knowledge and wisdom appeared, There emerged great hypocrisy. (Ch 18) Abandon humanity and discard righteousness; Then the people will return to !lial piety and deep love. (Ch. 19)

But this does not mean that Heaven and Earth and the sage are evil. It is just that they ought to follow ziran, but not the arti!cial morality invented when the following of ziran is lost. This suggests that after we lose ziran still the best we can do is to follow conventional morality. Thus, ziran transcends morality; the sage resides beyond good and evil. Good and evil are inventions of the ones who do not understand the natural (ziran) operation of the Dao. Heaven and Earth as well as the sage are not partial, ‘The Way of Heaven has no favorites,’ as Chapter 79 says. Therefore, to say that Heaven and Earth and the sage are not humane does not represent a kind of immoralism; they transcend any moral theory, so their way can be better styled as amoralism.4 While the Confucian and Mohist criticisms of government and society stand on moral ground, the Daoist criticism is grounded on its speci!c amoralism.

However, the question might be raised, is this situation bad just because it does not follow the natural way of Dao? The Laozi’s understanding of Dao is that it does not interfere with the human original condition and does not encourage more action or abundance than needed. The book says:

Withdraw as soon as your work is done.

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 141

Such is Heaven’s Way [Dao]. (Ch. 9)

This Heaven’s Way or Dao of Heaven can be a pattern that people can follow. The sage-ruler follows the above prescription and:

It is precisely because he does not compete that the world cannot compete with him. (Ch. 22 and 66)

Thus, the Laozi believes that the governing through Dao will maintain peace and welfare in the state. As the book says at the very end:

The Way of Heaven is to bene!t others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete. (Ch. 81)

Also, to abandon this way means to attach to desires for merit and commodities that need e#ort to be obtained. This brings people into constant yearning for these things and even when concrete desires are satis!ed there are more and more desires for other things. Anyhow, we might reproach that there is nothing bad in satisfying our desires, but on the contrary, when they are satis!ed it makes our lives easier. Well, that is the whole point for the Laozi, when we are slaves of the desires we can never reach the harmonious lives we originally had endowed by Dao. But if we live according to the natural way of Dao, there will be no such desires and no striving to satisfy them, so no reason for unhappiness when we fail to do that. In the following, I will discuss these desires in more detail.

4. Sel!sh desires

So far we were talking about the government being oppressive and the state disordered because the ruler imposes heavy taxation, harsh punishments and engages in frequent warfare. Thus, the ruler creates a kind of vicious circle in which the more oppression toward the people he exerts the more rebellious the people will be and thus no solution to the state disorder has been made. However, this vicious circle is also helped by the desires, because the desires are in the ground of taxation, punishments and warfare. We are not talking here about the natural desires, the desires that come from the natural (ziran) function of Dao and which are good for a human being to survive and live a comfortable and healthy life, but we are talking about the unnatural desires, the desires that come from a youwei consciousness which are responsible for extravagancy and luxury in human beings. I shall simply call these desires sel!sh desires.

It is not only the sel!sh desires in the ruler but also the sel!sh desires in the people that bring about the state disorder. However, according to the Laozi, the responsibility for the people having sel!sh desires lays again in the ruler. It is because the ruler indulges into satisfying sel!sh desires and by that gives example to the people that the people themselves start to develop their own sel!sh desires. Moreover, the sel!sh desires are never su$ciently satis!ed. This is the reason for people’s discontent with the ruler and the ruler’s oppressive measures against this discontent, which brings us back to the vicious circle of oppression.

Thus, in order the state to be brought in order, the ruler must get rid of the sel!sh desires, in himself !rst, and by that in the people as well. The book says:

Do not exalt the worthy, so that the people shall not compete.

142 A. STAMATOV

Do not value rare treasures, so that the people shall not steal.

Do not display objects of desire, so that the people’s hearts shall not be disturbed.

Therefore in the government of the sage, He keeps their hearts vacuous, Fills their bellies, Weakens their ambitions, And strengthens their bones, He always causes his people to be without knowledge (cunning) or desire, And the crafty to be afraid to act. By acting without action, all things will be in order. (Ch. 3)

Here we can clearly see that according to the Laozi, if people see the worthy, rare treasures and objects of desire, they will also want to become worthy, to have rare treasures and possess objects of desire, which will bring to competition, crime and disturbed thoughts. Thus, the sage-ruler wants people to have empty hearts and weak ambitions, that is, not to possess sel!sh desires, but also wants people to !ll their bellies and strengthen their bones, that is, to maintain their natural desires for survival, health and comfort. Only thus can the peace and order in the state be preserved.

In other words, the real ruler who can attain a state without sel!sh desires is the one who governs through wuwei, the sage-ruler. The Laozi hopes that the governing of the ruler is for the people and not for his own sel!sh desires. The book says:

When one desires to take over the empire and act on it (interfere with it), I see that he will not succeed. The empire is a spiritual thing, and should not be acted on. He who acts on it harms it. He who holds on to it loses it. Among creatures some lead and some follow. Some blow hot and some blow cold. Some are strong and some are weak. Some may break and some may fall.

Therefore the sage discards the extremes, the extravagant, and the excessive. (Ch. 29)

And, to make this point even clearer, the sage in the Laozi adds: I take no action and the people of themselves are transformed. I love tranquility and the people of themselves become correct. I engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous. I have no desires and the people of themselves become simple. (Ch. 57)

The sel!sh desires produce in the ruler the want for the extremes, the extravagant and the excessive. However, the sage who uses wuwei and follows the natural operation of Dao discards these three so that he can ‘master the dao and practice the dao’. (Cheng, 2004, p. 173) As the working of the Dao is wuwei, the sage also uses wuwei in governing. Thus, to repeat again, the Laozi says:

The Way of Heaven is to bene!t others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete. (Ch. 81)

To conclude, according to the Laozi, it is hardly likely that the reasons for the state disorder are to be found in the people. For the Laozi, the people are innocent creatures

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 143

who can be very easily led toward one or another way, and their natural simple characters can be also spoiled so that their sel!sh desires will arise. Thus, when people rebel against the ruler, when they kill each other, that is, when they contribute to the state disorder, they are doing that not because it is in their natures, but because they are brought into situation of doing it. Only one person can be responsible for this situation and that is the ruler. If the ruler goes for the extremes, the extravagant and the excessive, he contributes to the state disorder in two ways. In the !rst way, the ruler in order to achieve the above three imposes heavy taxation, harsh punishments and frequent warfare. Thus, the lives of people become di$cult, and it is common for them to react against the ruler. In the second way, when people know about the sel!sh desires of the ruler they themselves also want to satisfy their own sel!sh desires, that is, they start to feel the need for the extremes, the extravagant and the excessive.

Having in mind the situation in ancient China of the Warring States period, we are not surprised to see that the author(s) of the Laozi believed that living according to the natural way of Dao, that is, desireless, is the best situation for human beings.

5. A Daoist criticism of the modern state

The criticism in the Laozi was directed to the government, and society of the time the book was written or compiled. Nevertheless, we may ask: Can this ancient work be considered in a contemporary context? More precisely: Can the criticism in the Laozi be also directed to the modern state and society? In the following, I will try to construct a criticism of the modern state based on Daoist sources, that is, on the Laozi.

Mou (1983) has pointed out that the political philosophy of the Laozi had not only value in its own time but also today. He says: ‘All these problems are everlasting; all the truth is a universal truth. We should not think that all this is only from two thousand years ago and is of no use today. Today’s situation is also a kind of age of Warring States’. (p. 88) In general, the problems encountered by people in ancient times are similar to the ones encountered today. Although the political systems are di#erent, the basic human rights have improved, the society is may be democratized, the people are still under one or another kind of oppression, that is, the society is "oating in the youwei consciousness and is far away from the natural operation of Dao. Thus, we may see what Lau (1971) says on this:

If the Taoist philosopher could have visited our society, there is no doubt that he would have considered popular education and mass advertising the twin banes of modern life. The one causes the people to fall from their original state of innocent ignorance; the other creates new desires for objects no one would have missed if they had not been invented. (p. 35)

If the author(s) of the Laozi can see the modern world, they can still recognize similar problems with their own times and may agree that what Chapters 57 and 58 say, that the more laws, weapons and skills bring disorder and that the government creates people’s discontent, can also describe the modern world. The Daoist philosopher will think that these modern states are also in a certain way oppressive. Although they do not necessarily use violence to repress people, they repress them in a way that they put them in a process of trying to satisfy their sel!sh desires, that is, striving to obtain

144 A. STAMATOV

commodities that are sometimes not easy to get, to aim for higher positions and power and by that create more desires. All these bring people into a state of mutual competition.

But the ancient Chinese society is very di#erent from the society today. It is especially noticeable that their economies are based on di#erent grounds. I will use the account given by the Chinese philosophy historian Feng Youlan (Fung, 1997). China is a con- tinental country so the Chinese had to make their living by agriculture. In an agrarian country like China of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States, periods land was the primary basis of wealth. However, besides agriculture that was concerned with produc- tion, there was commerce that was concerned with exchange. In order to have exchange, one must !rst have production. In ancient China, agriculture was the major form of production and was the ground for the economy, while the merchants were looked down upon as the lowest class of the society. Feng also mentions that in a third century BCE work called The Spring and Autumn Annals of Master Lu (Lü shi chun qui), there is a chapter titled ‘The Value of Agriculture.’ In it the agriculture is praised and it is said that the farmers are innocent and unsel!sh, while the merchants are corrupt and sel!sh. The point is that in ancient, China agriculture was economically more important than commerce. (p. 17–19)

In today’s post-industrialized technology driven societies, things are much di#erent if not opposite from ancient China. First, we live in a time of massive production. When speaking of massive production today, I am not thinking of the production that comes from agriculture itself, but of the massive industrial production of those commodities that we see all the time in the market or in the advertisements when we turn on the television, read the newspaper or surf the Net. As stated above, the agriculture is concerned with production but it produces products that are necessary for our nutrition, while the massive production of today, despite the various commodities it produces, may also use agricultural products and turn them into nutrition products that are more attractive with their shape and "avor, and moreover, the advertisements of these products can be seen everywhere. Second, we live in a time of highly developed commerce. The commerce is needed for the commodities of the massive production to be distributed to the consumer. With the advance of the information technology, the merchant can buy and sell from his or her computer considerably bigger amount of commodities than the ancient Chinese merchant who had to move on his horse from place to place and discuss the deals in person. We can see today that commerce is the ground for the economy and not agriculture as it was in ancient China, and we can also notice that a huge amount of the wealth gathers around the massive production and commerce, which are twin brothers. Contrary, in an agrarian country like ancient China, the wealth gathered around those who possessed the land, the feudal lords. We saw earlier that the Laozi was de!nitely unsatis!ed of the situation of its time: the rulers had too much and the people were dissatis!ed of their lives. However, what the Laozi did not imagine was a time in which the merchants would possess most of the wealth. Thus, the Daoist philosopher would be abhorred to see that cunning skills and sel!sh desires rule over the people; a situation completely unnatural to human being.

As it is stated above, the Laozi blamed the ruler for all the problems in the state and for collecting wealth, while the people stay poor. The wealthiest people of that time were the kings and then the princes of the small states and no one from the farmers,

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 145

producers or merchants could collect more wealth than them. However, in today’s democratic world, the situation is di#erent. The owners of the big corporations are the wealthiest people and not those in the government, unless the corporation owners participate in the government. For the Daoist philosopher, this situation is not much di#erent from the one of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, moreover, it is worse. While the rulers of ancient China were responsible for arousing sel!sh desires in people, they did that unintentionally, they just gave bad examples to people and did not try to suppress the sel!sh desires in them. Today, the governments intentionally arouse people’s sel!sh desires so that the society can move on and the economy can grow. However, it seems on the surface that it is the corporation owners, who maybe but not necessarily participate in the governments, who deliberately want to arouse the sel!sh desires of the people so that they can earn more pro!t. Hence, we have so many advertisements. Thus, it would seem that the oppression and arousing of desires do not come only from the government, or maybe not so much from the government as it comes from the people themselves, that is, from the ones that own and control the wealth. As we can see, the producers and merchants they all come from the people, actually, the government itself comes from the people. Anyhow, in the !nal analysis, in the background of all this is the government, because the government wants the economy to grow so it motivates people to produce, trade and consume, that is, to have sel!sh desires.

Is there a solution to this situation in which the sel!sh desires rule? The Laozi principally would say that the solution may only come from the government. As is stated above, it is only the ruler who can repress the sel!sh desires and make people maintain only their natural desires (Chapter 37). Nonetheless, the problem is that today the corporations rule with the sel!sh desires and often the decisions and actions of the government are in"uenced or sometimes even determined by and related to the decisions and actions of the corporations. Also, any citizen who has ful!lled the condi- tions for that can practically be involved in the government or run for elections, and, after all, people have the right to decide who is going to be in the government. However, for the Laozi, as we can see, ‘the best rulers are those whose existence is merely known by the people’ (Ch. 17). They are the sage-rulers and they accomplish their task and complete their work but the people think they have done all that by themselves by simply following the natural (ziran) operation of Dao. Thus, the Daoist philosopher would say that people in today’s democratic societies are too much aware of the existence of the government and they can even decide who to be in the government and by that decide on the direction of its actions. The Laozi imagines that the sage-ruler keeps the people out of interfering with his rule so that the people would not bother with it but just continue their lives in accordance with the simple nature of Dao. In other words, the sage-ruler keeps people apolitical. This situation of course must happen only under the precondition that the ruler has already established a state in accordance with Dao, otherwise it would not be much di#erent from the state of the Legalist school that also wants to keep people apolitical, but by using force and making them obedient, so that they would not dare to question the ruler’s position and decisions. In the modern democratic world, however, the people are political.

The Laozi did not imagine a democratic society in which the government is from the people, by the people, and for the people, but it imagined a state of a#airs brought

146 A. STAMATOV

about by a sage-ruler. (Schwartz, 1985, p. 213) This state of a#airs is pure dictatorship in which the sage-ruler is not from the people and by the people but is still for the people. Someone might reproach the Laozi for missing the point of democracy that the ruler must also come from and by the people, but for the Laozi being from and by the people has no signi!cance as long as the people are oppressed by the government, obsessed with sel!sh desire, and in short, the whole state "oats in youwei consciousness. The Daoist philosopher may note that the modern democracy is nothing but a dictatorship of the majority, or even worse, a dictatorship of the sel!sh desires which are constantly aroused and encouraged by the producers and merchants, and the government itself. The modern democrat may also say that in a democratic state the people have the right to freely express their discontent toward the government and even ask for a new one if the present government went astray or people’s lives became miserable. However, for the Laozi, although this may be considered as a bene!t of the modern democratic society, it still shows that it is an oppressive society in which the people more or less often are dissatis!ed with the government.

It is clear that the Laozi may o#er a criticism of modern society, but can it also o#er a new system applicable in practice that can substitute the modern state? It would be too unrealistic to ask from people to give up the bene!ts of the advancement of civilization and society and accept the state described in Chapter 80 of the book. But this criticism may at least make us think about the possible "aws of modern society and consider to what extent it can be detrimental if any to human beings in one or another way.

In sum, I have shown that the Laozi’s criticism of the situation of its time can in a way be directed also toward the modern democratic state. This criticism is mostly directed to the rule of sel!sh desires and to the fact that people are too aware of the process of governing and are constantly involved into politics. On the other hand, what I left out from this section is that democracy can object to this criticism in many points if it calls on, for example, the concepts of freedom, human rights, equality, quality of life etc. However, the purpose of this section was to show what a Daoist criticism of modern state would look like, so I will leave the debate between the Daoist and the democrat for another occasion.

6. Conclusion

The Laozi expounds a severe criticism of the rulers and society of its time and this criticism is strongly supported by its metaphysical teachings. For the Laozi, the best rule is the one according to Dao which means that it follows the naturalness or the self-so of Dao. This is what is called governing through wuwei. Generally speaking, the problem with all existing states is that they have broken up the connection with Dao and lost the course of its natural function, so the rulers of these states can only use governing through youwei, which is the arti!cial and harmful way of governing and handling things. This kind of governing makes the rulers oppressive who in order to gain wealth and bring order in the state impose heavy taxation, harsh punishments and frequent warfare. The problem is, for the Laozi, that using oppres- sive measures for achieving order in the state actually contributes to the increasing of the state disorder. This kind of youwei government also incites people’s sel!sh desires which are arti!cial and di#erent from the natural desires that are endowed by

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 147

Dao. These desires make people strive to obtain treasures and objects; they make them yearn for the extremes, the extravagant and the excessive which brings competition between people and disorder. What the Laozi might say about the modern democratic state in general is that it is governed by youwei, and in particular that it is still oppressive by means of putting people into constant competition and need to satisfy their sel!sh desires. However, the questions whether the political philosophy of the Laozi as a whole bears some feasibility or not and is it possible that the concrete political teachings in it can substitute the modern democracy can be challenged, and are not considered here because it will surpass the scope and dimensions of this discussion, but they can still be suitably examined in another place. What is important here is that the Laozi’s criticism of government and society by itself may be directed to both Spring and Autumn/Warring States periods and the modern world.

Notes

1. I will use the Hanyu Pinyin phonetic system to transcribe the Mandarin pronunciations of the Chinese characters into the Latin alphabet. The names and words in titles and quotations that are transcribed in another system will be left unchanged.

2. All quotations from the Laozi are from Chan (1963). 3. For a more detailed discussion of the opposites in the Laozi see Lau (1958). 4. Ames and Hall (2003) translation of Chapter 5 is closer to the point: ‘The heavens and the

earth are not partial to institutionalized morality. They take things and treat them all as straw dogs. Sages too are not partial to institutionalized morality. They treat the common people as straw dogs.’ (p. 84).

Disclosure statement

No potential con"ict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Ames, R. T., & Hall, D. L. (2003). Daodejing – ‘Making this life signi!cant’: A philosophical translation. New York, NY: Balantine Books.

Chan, W.-T. (1963). The way of Lao Tzu. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chan, W.-T. (1973). A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cheng, C.-Y. (2004). Dimensions of the Dao and Onto-Ethics in the light of the DDJ. Journal of

Chinese Philosophy, 31(2), 143–182. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.2004.00148.x Fu, P. (2003). Jiedu Laozi [Interpreting Laozi]. Taibei: Lixu wenhua shiye gongsi. Fung, Y.-L. (1997). A short history of Chinese philosophy. New York, NY: The Free Press. Henricks, R. (1989). Lao-tzu: Te-tao Ching - A new translation based on the recently discovered Ma-

wang-tui Texts. New York, NY: Balantine Books. Hsiao, K.-C. (1979). A history of Chinese political thought, Volume I: From the beginning to the sixth

century AD. (F. W. Mote, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hughes, E. R. (1969). Chinese philosophy in classical times. Taipei: Jinshan Tushu. Lau, D. C. (1958). The treatment of opposites in Lao Tzu. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and

African Studies, 21, 344–360. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00072724 Lau, D. C. (1971). Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

148 A. STAMATOV

Legge, J. (1962). The texts of Taoism, part I:The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu, The writings of Chuang Tzu (Books I-XVII). New York, NY: Dover.

Lin, P. J. (1992). A translation of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching and Wang Pi’s commentary. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies.

Liu, X. (1998). Naturalness (Tzu-jan), the core value in Taoism: Its ancient meaning and its signi!cance today. In L. Kohn & M. LaFargue (Eds.), Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching (pp. 211–228). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Liu, X. (2009). Daoism (1): Lao Zi and the Dao-De-Jing. In B. Mou (Ed.), Routledge history of world philosophies, Vol. 3: History of Chinese philosophy. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

Mou, Z. (1983). Zhongguo zhexue shijiu jiang [Nineteen lectures on Chinese philosophy]. Taibei: Xuesheng shuju.

Schwartz, B. I. (1985). The world of thought in ancient China. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Shen, V. (1992). Lao Tzu’s metaphysics and his critique of Confucian ethics. In V. Shen & T. V. Doan (Eds.), Morality, metaphysics and Chinese culture (pp. 17–31). Washington DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.

Shen, V. (2003). Laozi (Lao Tzu). In A. S. Cua (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese philosophy (pp. 355–361). New York, NY and London: Routledge.

Slingerland, E. (2003). E"ortless action: Wu-Wei as conceptual metaphor and spiritual ideal in early China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wang, B. (2010). Laozi Daodejing de xiandai jiedu [Contemporary interpretation of Laozi Dao De Jing]. Taibei: Yuanliu chuban shiye gongsi.

Wang, Q. (1997). On Laozi’s concept of Ziran. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 24(3), 291–321. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.1997.tb00209.x

Welch, H. (1972). Taoism: The parting of the way. Taipei: Beacon Press. Yuan, B. (1991). Laozi zhexue zhi quanshi yu chongjian [Interpretation and reconstruction of Laozi’s

philosophy]. Taibei: Wenjin chubanshe.

ASIAN PHILOSOPHY 149

Copyright of Asian Philosophy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.