The Political Zhuangzi?

Scott Bradley

"I will drag my tail in the mud." Hansen ("Guru or Skeptic?) closes his essay in Hiding the World in the World with this famous retort from Zhuangzi when asked to become a minister. Better to be a turtle in the mud than a revered, but dead, one in the vaults of a king. This, Hansen implies, speaks to the consequences of Zhuangzi's skeptical relativism — anarchy — the true message of Zhuangzi.

By "true" message is meant the one that his philosopher contemporaries would have derived from his writings. Having recently tried my damnedest to come up with a workable political theory in Zhuangzi, I find such an assertion quite remarkable. But in the absence of the mystical vision which Hansen rejects, I suppose some other main aim needs to be found.

It is not that Hansen agrees with this presumed appeal to anarchy; in fact, he quotes Wong to the effect that it merely demonstrates Daoism's failure to actually formulate a reasonable political theory to combat Confucian (and Mohist) authoritarianism. Anarchy arises by default. But if this is the case, then Zhuangzi did a very poor job of making his! Considering the craftsmanship evinced in the writings themselves, this is hard to imagine. It seems rather the case that he had other things in mind.

All this being said, Hansen does show how Zhuangzian relativism suggests what today we would call "political liberalism", all of which might be summed up as 'live and let live'. "When we reflect correctly on relativistic skepticism, we should risk no undermining of commitment other than agreeing to abandon prejudice, intolerance, and repression." In other words, Zhuangzi's "mild" skepticism does not demand we give up our own view of what entails the good life, only that we should not decide for others.

The contemporary gist of political theory was that a "sage-king" should rule and determine what the good life is for all. But, "There are no sages in the Confucian sense." Thus, "Skepticism about ways of life in the context of ancient Chinese political theory is skepticism of government — an argument for anarchy." (Hansen's italics.) But is there a contradiction here? "An argument for anarchy" is an argument against 'other' forms of government. But does not Zhuangzi's personal ethic of live and let live also apply in the political sphere?

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

What's Legit?

Trey Smith

State violence deemed illegitimate calls into question the very premise of terror charges — if state violence is not in all circumstances legitimate then how can non-state violence to end illegitimate state violence in all circumstances be illegitimate? The states’ public position, articulated by recent presidents, is that protesters have every right to peacefully protest the use of illegitimate violence by the state. But as a purveyor of illegitimate violence, what right does the state retain to claim that legitimacy distinguishes state from non-state violence? The state is either forced into the profoundly undemocratic position that its legitimacy is self-generated, and therefore not a function of the consent of the people, or that its legitimacy does derive from the consent of the people and therefore when that consent is withdrawn, so is the states’ legitimacy.
~ from Black Bloc Anarchists and State Terrorism by Rob Urie ~

This article asks a very important question. It's a difficult one for a pacifist like me to answer.

In general, I believe that violence is illegitimate; it represents a failure of the human imagination. However, if my government is utilizing illegitimate force (violence) in my name, do I have the moral and ethical right to use force to try to get them to stop?

This is the same sort of question that Dietrich Bonhoeffer and fellow conspirators faced during World War II when they participated in a failed plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. Bonhoeffer simply didn't wrestle with this question as an average citizen -- he was a Lutheran minister!

I can only guess that he must have felt that the violence of assassination was morally acceptable to prevent the greater violence that was masterminded by Hitler. While I admire Bonhoeffer for his rectitude and convictions, I am not altogether certain that I personally would have arrived at the same decision.

What about you? Do you believe that it is morally or ethically legitimate to utilize violence in the attempt to try to thwart violence that you deem to be illegitimate?

Everyone Is Born Equal

In my last post, I stated that the anarchist opposition to hierarchy resonated with me, but I discussed this concept in terms of Lao Tzu's words and writings. In this post, I'm going to explain WHY I feel a kinship to this perspective.

At the outset of life, each human is born equal. It is only after we are jettisoned from the womb that inequality kicks in. At that juncture, it often depends on who our parents are and their standing in society. It may also depend on when and where we're born and the overall climate of our society or civilization.

But in those few brief moments when we take our first breath, there are no real distinctions among the lot of us.

To underscore this point, what if at the moment the umbilical cord is cut, everyone cleared away from us? You know what would happen? Regardless of a host of criteria, each and every one of us would die. With no one to feed, clothe or protect us, we wouldn't survive for very long at all.

So, since we share equality at birth (and a strong argument could be made that we share this same equality at death), why must there be inequality between these two poles?

Top to Bottom

I am slowly working my way through Section A of An Anarchist FAQ (it's over 190 pages). One of the points that I've found that resonates with me strongly is an opposition to hierarchy. This concept represents one of my central critiques of religion -- the pervasive top-down structure. As the text from the anarchy link above indicates, all forms of government and the vast majority of socioeconomic institutions in our society are hierarchic.

Much can be found in the thought of Lao Tzu that matches up with this viewpoint. He emphasizes that we each lose a large measure of our essential nature when we allow external forces to dictate our thought and behavior. (When we start exploring the Chuang Tzu, this point will be driven home tenfold.) So, I can certainly understand why some people will point to Lao Tzu as an early exponent of anarchy.

However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there is another undercurrent which flows through most of Lao Tzu's perspective. While he does extol some aspects of anarchy, he concurrently views some form of government as necessary since a great deal of his political focus centers around kings and sages.

In the works we have reviewed thus far, I can remember no verse or passage which even hints at doing away we countries or governmental entities. Like many contemporary sociopolitical reformers, it appears to me that Lao Tzu is more interested in perfecting governmental models through adherence to the Way as opposed to abolishing them outright.

So, at this early juncture in my exploration, I would not submit that Lao Tzu is an example of an early anarchist. While some elements of this sociopolitical theory are prevalent in the writings and/or words ascribed to him, I would not say this is the predominant feature.

What do you think?

Exploration

It's true of most of us that, as we age, we can get really set in our ways. This is particularly true when it comes to the realm of ideas and concepts. We're used to looking at the world through one narrow lens and, in time, it's not uncommon to develop tunnel vision.

Consequently, I think it's a good thing to stretch one's legs from time to time, to walk around the block with eyes wide open. In going through the Wen Tzu (which, by the way, I should f-i-n-a-l-l-y complete in the next two days or so) and pondering the ideas laid out, it has frequently challenged me to move beyond my current perspective. Like a lot of people I know, I sometimes have resented the nudge and have tried valiantly to cling to my comfortable worldview.

But the philosophies of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are beginning to get under my skin (in a most positive way) and, try as I might, I think it's time I dig myself out of my self-imposed ideological rut. So, in the coming weeks, I plan to broaden the scope of my explorations into the realm of philosophic ideas and I will share my journey and analyses of such in this space.

It has been suggested by many that the early Taoist writings present a view of humankind that tilts toward and advocates for anarchism. To be quite frank, I've never given this idea much serious thought. Further, due to my peace activism of the past 15 years, I haven't held a very positive view of contemporary anarchists because they tended to turn peaceful marches and rallies into tense confrontations between protesters and the police.

Still, despite my obvious reticence toward the concept of anarchy, even I can't deny that this theme raises its head again and again in the thoughts of Lao Tzu and, especially, Chuang Tzu. So rather than simply sweep it under the rug and pretend that this ideation is not present, I've decided I need to explore the concept of anarchy as well as other concepts that lie outside of my accepted framework.

To this end, here is something for you to chew on. It comes from An Anarchist FAQ*:

Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. All such "fixed" ideas are the source of tyranny and contradiction, leading to attempts to make everyone fit onto a Procrustean Bed. This will be true regardless of the ideology in question -- Leninism, Objectivism, "Libertarianism," or whatever -- all will all have the same effect: the destruction of real individuals in the name of a doctrine, a doctrine that usually serves the interest of some ruling elite.

...Dogmas are static and deathlike in their rigidity, often the work of some dead "prophet," religious or secular, whose followers erect his or her ideas into an idol, immutable as stone. Anarchists want the living to bury the dead so that the living can get on with their lives. The living should rule the dead, not vice versa. Ideologies are the nemesis of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves.

*Note: Interestingly enough, I found this site because the information contained within is part of a package I downloaded for my Debian GNU/Linux operating system. I can't imagine Microsoft making this kind of information available to Windows users.