xiao 2014 republican beginnings liberty as non-domination in the chinese republicanist...

8/11/2019 Xiao 2014 Republican Beginnings Liberty as Non-Domination in the Chinese Republicanist Tradition-libre

1/31


2/31

2

working on Confucian political philosophy share one thing in common: They draw upon

the traditional Confucian political philosophy that goes back to Confucius (551-479

BCE), but not the Chinese republicanist tradition that started in the late nineteenth

century and the beginning of the twentieth century. What are most frequently quoted are

Confucius, Mencius, and the classical Confucian canons, but rarely modern figures after

the late nineteenth century except those who had also tried to revive Confucianism such

as the New Confucians, most notably Mou Zongsan (1909-1995). Most of the important

figures in the Chinese republicanist tradition are not mentioned. What these scholars are

trying to do is to revive Confucian political philosophy as if the Chinese republicanist

tradition had never exited.

It is a significant historical fact that about a hundred years ago, around the turn of

the twentieth century, republicanism took China by storm. Through the popular print

media, the republican ideas such as liberty (zi you), constitutionalism (xian zheng),

peoplessovereignty (min quan), a republic (gong he), citizen (guo min), xin min (new

people), and gong de (civic virtue) spread like wild fire.5The Chinese republicanist

tradition was born. Some of these ideas are radically different from traditional Confucian

Princeton-China Series. Tongdong Bai, China : The Political Philosophy of the MiddleKingdom, World Political Theories (London ; New York: Zed Books, 2012). This is the

English version of his 2009 Chinese book entitled New Mission of an Old State: Classical

Confucian Political Philosophy in a Contemporary and Comparative Context; Daniel

Bell, China's New Confucianism : Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008). Ruiping Fan, Reconstructionist

Confucianism : Rethinking Morality after the West, Philosophical Studies in

Contemporary Culture (Dordrecht ; London: Springer, 2010).5Popular print media such as newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets, as well as all kinds

of civil associations, played an essential role in this process. One may argue that, like

modern nation-states, a republic is an imagined community (to borrow a term fromBenedict Anderson), which would have been impossible in a vast country like China

without modern print media.


3/31

3

political philosophy, but some are hybrids of ideas from Confucianism and ideas from

Western republicanism. This should not come as a surprise. A tradition that has a hundred

years of history in a large country that has four thousand years of its own history cannot

but be a complicated and diverse tradition. There are both discontinuities and continuities

between traditional China and modern China.6

Elsewhere I have discussed the hybrid ideas in the Chinese republicanist tradition,

such as the idea of civic virtues.7This sub-tradition may be called the Athenian sub-

tradition of the Chinese republicanist tradition. In this essay, I focus on a different sub-

6Since the 1980s among historians of China, this has become a commonplace. In his1984 book Paul A. Cohen, Discovering History in China : American Historical Writing

on the Recent Chinese Past, Studies of the East Asian Institute. (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1984)., Paul Cohen has given an important survey of the turn amongAmerican historians of China that emphasized the continuities.7Xiao 2002 Liang Qichaos Social and Political Philosophy, in Zhongying Cheng and

Nicholas Bunnin, Contemporary Chinese Philosophy (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell

Publishers, 2002); Yang Xiao, "Rediscovering Republicanism in China: Beyond theDebate between New Leftists and Liberals " Contemporary Chinese Thought 34, no. 3

(2003). In Xiao 2003, I argue that we can find resources in the Chinese republicanist

tradition to help us solve political problems China is facing today. There, I focused on

Michael Walzers theory of non-domination and Hannah Arendts Athenian version of

republicanism. In Xiao 2002, I discuss Liang Qichaos Athenian republicanism,focusing on his emphasis on the civic-virtue-based concept of citizenship, which is based

on his understanding of the Confucian emphasis on virtue. However, here, my focus will

be on Yan Fus republicanism, which can be characterized as a Roman version ofrepublicanism, which defines citizenship primarily not in terms of civic virtues, but as a

legal status. It should be pointed out that the fact that Yan Fu defines citizenship as alegal status does not imply that he does not also think that civic virtues are important.

Pettit and Skinner have, I believe correctly, emphasized that there should be an analytic

distinction between Athenian and the Roman republicanism. However, I think it is wrong

to dismiss Athenian republicanism. Only one, among many, version of Athenianrepublicanism is based on the controversial claim that the political life is the best life, and

we do find such a version in some of Arendts writings. However, when Arendt is read

more charitably we find various kinds of arguments for republicanism. Furthermore, themain argument for rediscovering an Athenian republicanist tradition in China in Xiao

2002 is an instrumental one. It is possible to argue that for a healthy and strong republic

to flourish both Roman and Athenian republicanisms are necessary; see Ian Shapiro, "OnNon-Domination," University of Toronto Law Journal 62, no. 3 (2012). Note that Shapiro

also includes Michael Walzers account of non-domination, as I did in Xiao 2002.


4/31

4

tradition, which may be called the Roman sub-tradition of Chinese republicanism. What

is most striking about this sub-tradition, as I argue in this paper, is that they were

connected and unified by what we shall call the republican idea of liberty as non-

domination, which is that the opposite of freedom or being free (zi you) is slavery (nu yu)

or being a slave (nu li), and that people are free when they are citizens (guo min) in a

constitutional monarchy (according to the Reformers) or a republic (according to the

Revolutionaries).8They are slaves when they are subjects in a tyranny or despotic

country (zhuan zhi). This marked the beginning of the Chinese republican tradition. The

founding of the Republic of China in 1911 would have been impossible without the

republican idea of liberty.

The Chinese term zi you, like the English term liberty or freedom, has

multiple meanings. In the history of political thought in the West, liberty seems to be the

contested concept par excellence.9This is true of the concept of liberty in China as well.

The concept of liberty has been heatedly contested in China, and will continue to be so in

the future. The goal of this paper is modest. I do not intend to give a comprehensive

history of the contested concept of liberty or the history of republicanism in China. I want

8The Reformers (gai liang pai) include members of the constitutional monarchist party(li xian pai or bao huang dang), and some of its most well-known members are Kang

Youwei (1858-1927) and Liang Qichao (1873-1929). I count Yan Fu (1854-1921) as a

Reformer, even though he is not officially a member of the constitutional monarchistparty. Some of the most well-known members of the Revolutionaries (ge ming dang) are

Zhang Binglin (1868-1936), Wang Jingwei (1883-1944), Chen Tianhua (1875-1905),

Zhou Rong (1885-1905), and Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925). It should be pointed out that this

classification is not based on ones official membership of a party, but on ones views.For example, one does not have to be an official member of Kang Youweis

constitutional monarchist party to be counted as a Reformer.9Kari Palonen, Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric, Key Contemporary Thinkers.

(Cambridge, UK Malden, MA: Polity; Blackwell, 2003)., 95.


5/31

5

to look at some of the first appearances of what is called the Roman republicanist concept

of liberty as non-domination, focusing on its uses in Yan Fu (1854-1921).

I use beginnings plural in the title, forthis paper is about the first republican

beginning around the turn of the twentieth century. There have been signs indicating that

a second beginning has quietly started in China at the turn of the twenty-first century. We

may take 2003 as an important year in this context. This was the year when Zou Xiang

Gong He (Towards the Republic), a historical TV drama series covering the end of the

Qing imperial China and the founding of the Republic of China, was broadcasted in

China. In the final speech by Sun Yat-sen, he talked about the lack of the rule of law,

transparency, and the separation of powers, and how it led to corruption in the Republic

of China, and how the constitution was manipulated by those who are in power. The

speech included the following lines: A republic is a country of liberty, and liberty is a

human right given by Heaven. [] If a republic is a false one, then what we have is a

true tyranny (zhuan zhi). [] If a republic is a false one, then what we have is being

enslaved (bei nu yu). Some parts of the speech, including the ones I just cited, were

censored when it was broadcasted in 2003. However, the script and the full speech could

be easily found on the internet. People also commented on the fact that these lines were

censored.

It must be pointed out that these words are not by the historical Sun; they are the

TV series writers words, put in Suns mouth. It seemed quite clear that they were meant

to be about what has been going on right now in the Peoples Republic of China. Since

the turn of the twenty-first century, there has also been an increasingly large body of

scholarly literature on the period between the end of imperial China and the founding of


6/31

6

the Peoples Republic of China. The parallel between that period and today must have

been too obvious to be lost to anyone.

For those who have been trying to revive republicanism in China, there are

lessons they can learn from the first beginning, as well as from the recent revival of

republicanism in the West. Another sign that there may have been a second republican

beginning in words, if not in deeds, is that there have been an increasingly large numbers

of Chinese translations of books on republicanism in the West. Iseult Honohan has made

the observation that there are three disciplines in which civic republican revival has taken

place in the West since the 1980s: (1) history of political thought (Hannah Arendt, J. G.

A. Pocock, Quentin Skinner), (2) constitutional legal theory (Cass Sunstein and Frank

Michelman), and (3) normative political theory (Philip Pettit, Richard Dagger, Michael

Sandel).10

We may also add (4) the history of the American Revolution (Arendt, Pocock,

Bernard Bailyn, Joyce Appleby, Gordon Wood), and (5) the international relations and

laws (James Bohman, M.N.S. Sellers, Cecile Laborde).

10Iseult Iseult Honohan, Civic Republicanism, The Problems of Philosophy (London ;

New York: Routledge, 2002)., 7-8. Since the publication of this book in 2002, many

more important works have been published, such as Henry S. Richardson, Democratic

Autonomy : Public Reasoning About the Ends of Policy, Oxford Political Theory (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2002). Richard Bellamys Richard Bellamy, Political

Constitutionalism : A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Ccile Labordes Ccile Laborde,

Critical Republicanism : The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy, OxfordPolitical Theory (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Frank LovettsFrank Lovett, A General Theory of Domination and Justice (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2010). John P. McCormick, Machiavellian Democracy (Cambridge,England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011). In additional to these

monographs, more important anthologies have been published as well since 2002, such as

Daniel M. Weinstock and Christian Nadeau, Republicanism : History, Theory andPractice (London: Frank Cass, 2004). ed. Ccile Laborde and John W. Maynor,

Republicanism and Political Theory (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008).


7/31


8/31

8

Section 4, I address the issue of whether liberty as non-domination should be taken as a

Western or a Chinese value.

1

The term zi you (liberty, freedom) does not appear in any classical texts in early China.

As we can see from a seventeenth-century vernacular novel, zi yousimply means the

lack of interference or restraints on ones physical movement.13

However, when we fast

forward to the late 1890s, we see that zi youhad become a master concept in political

discourse in popular newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets. Although non-interference

remains part of the meaning, a radically new meaning seemed to have been added to the

word by the Chinese republicanists. The new meaning is that zi you (liberty or freedom)

is the opposite of zhuan zhi (domination, tyranny), and to be zi you (free) is to be a citizen

(guo min) in a constitutional monarchy or a republic. By the same token, to be bu zi you

(unfree) is to be a subject in a tyranny (zhuan zhi), which is no different from being a

slave (nu li). How should we understand these statements by the republicanists? Why did

they need such a conception of liberty? What purposes did it serve?

To answer these questions, we need to take a close look at Zhang Zhidong,

arguably the most influential opponent of the republican concept of liberty. Why should

we look at the opponents of the republicanists? In his study of Hobbes, Quentin Skinner

emphasizes the importance of taking seriously how Hobbes contemporary opponents

understood him. And Collingwood emphasizes that to understand a philosophical

13This is in Chapter 88 of the seventeenth-century novel Xing shi yin yuan zhuan

(Marriage Destinies to Awaken the World).


9/31

9

position it is necessary to understand what exactly they are intended to deny, and this is

because every philosophical statement is intended to express the rejection of some

definite proposition which the person making the statement regards as erroneous.14

As

an implication, if we cannot understand what the doctrines were which a Plato or a

Parmenides meant to deny, it is certain that to just that extent we are unable to grasp what

it was that he meant to affirm.15

As we shall see, Zhang gives the most articulated

version of the doctrine that the republicanists intended to reject.

Zhang was a brilliant scholar-official, and he served as governor general of

several provinces for more than twenty years. As it happened, [t]his service enabled him

to become an indispensable consultant to all the pivotal affairs of the late Qing

government, one feature of which was that the initiative in formulating domestic and

especially diplomatic policies was largely exercised by the governors general, through the

medium of their memorials, and he eventually became the leading elder statesman in

the capital, serving as grand secretary and grand councilor in special charge of

supervising the new Ministry of Education.16He was a driving force behind the self-

strengthening movement (1861-1895), which started the modernization of the Chinese

military, railway, education, and popular print media. He supported certain social reforms,

such as the movement to abolish foot-bounding. However, he was opposed to political

reform, and radical ideas associated with it such as min quan (peoples sovereignty) and

14R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on Philosophical Method, Rev. ed. (Oxford and New York:

Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 2005)., 106-7. The book was originallypublished in 1933.15

Ibid., 109.16

Ssu-yu Teng and John King Fairbank, China's Response to the West: A DocumentarySurvey, 1839-1923, College ed., Atheneum Paperbacks (New York: Atheneum, 1970).,

164.


10/31

10

zi you (liberty). He articulated his main ideas in his 1898 book Quan xue pian

(Exhortation to Study), which was endorsed by the Emperor.17

The most interesting part of Exhortation to Study is Zhangs justification ofthe

legitimacy of the Qing imperial rule. He makes use of the idea of ren zheng (benevolent

governance),18

which was first articulated by Mencius (385312 BCE). Mencius argues

that rulers who send people to die in aggressive wars or rulers who take away peoples

livelihood through heavy taxation are no different from those who kill an innocent person

with a knife (Mencius, 1A3, 1A4, 3B8). One essential component of Mencius ren zheng

may be called Mencius moraleconomy. He insists that ren zheng must start with land

demarcation (3A3), and he outlines a blueprint of how to demarcate lands and how to

collect tax so that peoples basic needs are met and no one is cold or hungry (3A3, 1A3,

1A7, 7A22). He insists that a good rulers first priority ought to be taking care of the

weak, the poor, the elderly, and the orphans (1A4, 1A7, 1B5). Another obligation of a

good ruler is famine relief. Mencius also believes that a good ruler does not govern

through physical force but rather through moral education and virtuous actions of the

17In fact, the emperor issued an imperial rescript, which served as a preface to the book;

see The Collected Works of Zhan Zhidong, Zhidong Zhang et al., Zhang Zhidong Quan

Ji, Di 1 ban. ed., 12 vols. (Shijiazhuang Shi: Hebei ren min chu ban she, 1998). vol. 12,

9703. In the same year (1898), both the French and the English translations appeared in

LEcho de Chineand The Chinese Recorder, respectively. The English translation waspublished as a book in two years, Zhidong Zhang and Samuel Isett) (tr. Woodbridge,

China's Only Hope : An Appeal by Her Greatest Viceroy, Chang Chih-Tung, with the

Sanction of the Present Emperor (Edinburgh ; London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier,1901). The French translation was also published as a book in 1909.18

I usually use benevolent governance to translate ren zheng when it is used in

classical China where there were no states in its modern sense. I use benevolent

government to translate it after the late nineteenth century, which was the time whenChina was transforming itself from a dynasty into a modern state.


11/31

11

ruler. In other words, only a benevolent ruler can be a legitimate one. We may call this

the legitimacy through benevolent governance.

Zhangs justification of the legitimacy of the Qing imperial rule takes exactly

such an approach: No Dynasty since the Han [206BCE-220] and Tang [618-907] has

exhibited a greater benevolence toward its subjects than our Holy Qing .19

Zhang then

proceeds to elaborate the Qing courts fifteen major accomplishments in terms of ren

zheng.For example, the first achievement is benevolent governance in reducing tax

(bo fu ren zheng), and he gives concrete figures to show that the Qing court has been

steadily reducing taxes (9710). Zhang also claims that the Qing court has contributed

millions of taels of silver to the victims in major natural disasters such as floods and

famine, which displayed a generosity far greater than its predecessors (9710). Another

achievement is that the Qing court never forces people to serve as soldiers, and it always

makes sure that the troops are paid for their services (9712). After having listed all these

achievements, Zhang concludes:

So far I have only mentioned some of the most important accomplishments of theQing court; there are still countless more good laws and policies that I have not

mentioned. []Does the government of the foreign countries present such a

record of generosity, benevolence, diligence, and honesty as ours? AlthoughChina is not wealthy and powerful, her people of whatever condition, rich or poor,

high or low, all enjoy a free and happy life. Although the Western countries are

much stronger, the lower classes of the people are miserable, unhappy, andmaliciously treated. But there is no redress, and that is why they rise in rebellion

on every opportunity, and not a year passes without reports of the murder of some

king or the stabbing of some minister. We can then conclude that the governments

of these countries are not as good as the Chinese government. (9714)20

19Zhang et al., Zhang Zhidong Quan Ji., 9709. Hereafter, reference to this book will be

cited in the text by the original page number.20I use Woodbridges English translation with modifications.


12/31

12

The original phrase that I here translated as a free and happy life is fuyang kuanran

youyi zile(), in which the word zi you (free) did not appear.21

Zhang uses a vivid and stylish phrase to describe how people live their lives in a relaxing

way, with a lot of free space (fuyang kuanran), and enjoy themselves (zile). It is indeed

appropriate to translate it as a free and happy life.

The current Chinese governmentsjustification of the legitimacy of its rule seems

to be a variation of Zhangs approach. One leader has recently claimed that people have

the right to the pursuit of happiness, and promoting peoples happiness should be the duty

of the government. One of the most articulated versions can be found in the writings by

Kang Xiaoguang, who is an influential scholar-official.22Kangs doctrine of benevolent

governance as the legitimacy of authoritarian government is clearly a duplicated version

of Zhangs doctrine.

2

I now show that Yan Fusconcept of liberty as non-domination might have been exactly

what he needed in order to respond to Zhang Zhidongs benevolent-governance-based

argument. The main idea is that the people Zhang claims to be happy are actually not

free, because they are not citizens, but slaves. In this section I focus on Yan Fu, and I

turn to other republicanists of the same period in the next section.

21Woodbridges translation is enjoy a perfect freedom and a happy life (Chinas Only

Hope, 41).22

Xiaoguang Kang, "Renzheng: Quanwei Zhuyi Guojia De Hefaxing Lilun (Benevolent

Government: The Theory of Legitimacy of Authoritarian States)," Zhanlue yu guanli(Strategy and Management) 2(2004). Also see Kang, Benevolent Government (Ren

Zheng): The Third Path of Chinas Political Development..


13/31

13

It is not clear whether Yan Fu was the first to speak of liberty as the opposite of

slavery. He was very likely one of the first, and he was certainly the first to give the most

systematic articulation of various conceptions of liberty, and he seemed to be one of few

people who directly responded to Zhangsargument. For example, although he did not

explicitly refer to ZhangsExhortation to Study, Yan must have had Zhangsbenevolent-

governance-based justification in mind when he argued in his 1905 Lectures on Politics

that it is possible that the government is benevolent and kind, but the people are not free

(1283).23

Yan was arguably the most influential public intellectual of his time. Almost

without exception, all the major figures in modern Chinese history, such as Mao Zedong,

Hu Shi, and Lu Xun, have mentioned how they were awakened and transformed by

reading Yan Fus translations. Yanentered the Fuzhou Navy Yard School when he was

twelve-years old, and he spent four year in the English division of the school (1867-71).

He went to England and studied at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich (1877-9).24After

he returned to China, he eventually decided to translate Western political, social, and

economic works into Chinese. His translation of Thomas Huxleys Evolution and Ethics

was published in 1898; Adam Smiths The Wealth of the Nations in 1901; John Stuart

Mills On Liberty in 1903; Herbert Spencers The Study of Sociology in 1903; Edward

Jenks A History of Politics in 1904; and Montesquieus The Spirit of the Laws in 1904-9.

23Fu Yan and Shi Wang, Yan Fu Ji, Di 1 ban. ed., 5 vols., Zhongguo Jin Dai Ren Wu

Wen Ji Cong Shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju : Xin hua shu dian Beijing fa xing suo faxing, 1986)., 1282. Hereafter, reference to this book will be cited in the text by the

original page number.24

For a more detailed account of Yans life and his study in England, see Kewu Huang,The Meaning of Freedom : Yan Fu and the Origins of Chinese Liberalism (Hong Kong:

Chinese University Press, 2008).


14/31

14

Five years after the appearance of Zhangs Exhortation to Study, Yans translation

of Mills On Liberty was published in 1903, although he started working on the

translation much earlier.25

In his Noteon Translation,Yan mentions two basic

meanings of liberty or freedom:

(1) being without restraints or interferences;

(2) being the opposite of slavery (nu li), subjection (chen fu), bondage (yue shu),

necessity (bi xu)(132).26

The example he gives for freedom as non-interference is an English phrase: set the dog

at liberty. Unfortunately, here Yan does not give further articulation of liberty as non-

slavery or non-subjection. As we shall see, to get a better sense of what Yans view on

liberty really was, we have to look at his other writings.27

Two years later, in 1905, Yan was invited to give a series of lectures on politics to

a group of young people in Shanghai. On every Friday Yan gave a series of lectures on

politics for eight weeks. The interest in politics among young people, and the invitation

of Yan to give lectures on politics, was inspired by the Qing Courts official

announcement made earlier in that year that the court was preparing for

constitutionalism.28The lectures were published in a newspaper in the same year, and

published in book form in 1906, titled Zheng zhi jian yi (Lectures on Politics).29

Yan

devoted Lecture 5 and Lecture 6 to detailed articulations of various conceptions of liberty.

25He started the translation around 1899; see Yaojiu et al Luo, Yan Fu Nian Pu Xin Bian,

Di 1 ban. ed., 1 vols. (Xiamen: Lu jiang chu ban she, 2004)., 124.26

Here Yan refers to the terms in both Chinese and English.27

One of the reasons why Huang does not discuss Yans republicanist concept offreedom as non-domination in his book is because he focuses on Yans translation ofMills On Liberty, not his other writings.28

Luo, Yan Fu Nian Pu Xin Bian., 212.29We now have learned that Yan Fus Lectures on Politics is largely based on John

Seeleys lectures on political science, see John Robert Seeley, Introduction to Political


15/31


16/31


17/31

17

promise, I do not have freedom not to come on Fridays. For civilized people take

keeping promises most seriously. (1284).

He then contrasts it with what it is like to be a slave:

These are all examples of being restrained [in the case of ordinary people].However, it is completely different in the case of a slave. A slave is never free in

his life; he must always follow the masters orders, which is the most pitiful. Now

suppose a government has the following features: it does whatever it wants to thepeople, and the people must follow its order regarding their labor, their properties,

their wife and children, and how they spend their time. They have no laws to rely

on to fight against the government except through rebellion and revolution. Such

a government is dominating, and its people have no liberty; they are slaves. []To establish the constitution is to establish a law on which we the people may rely

to fight against the king someday. Without such a law, there is no

constitutionalism. Whether the king is benevolent or cruel is not relevant. (1284)33

This third conception of liberty as the opposite of slavery was a buzz word around the

turn of the twentieth century among the republicanists. This is the same as Pettits

republican conception of liberty as the opposite of slavery:

This opposition between slavery or servitude on the one hand and freedom on the

other is probably the single most characteristic feature of the long rhetoric of

liberty to which the experience of the Roman republic gave rise (Patterson 1991).It is significant, because slavery is essentially characterized by domination, not by

actual interference: even if the slave's master proves to be entirely benign and

permissive, he or she continues to dominate the slave. Contrasting liberty with

slavery is a sure sign of taking liberty to consist in non-domination rather than innon-interference. (32)

We now turn to a revealing remark Yan makes in his Note on Translation for

his translation of Mills On Liberty in 1903:

In a regime ruled by aristocrats, people will be struggling to get freedom from

[the domination of] the aristocrats; in a regime of despotism, people will be

struggling to get freedom from [the domination of] the king. However, in a

constitutional republic, what people will be struggling to get freedom from isneither aristocrats nor the king. In a constitutional republic, both the aristocrats

and the king are restrained by the rule of law at the same time. Therefore neither

33Liang Qichao has made a similar point regarding the constitution, see Yang Xiao,

"Liang Qichaos Social and Political Philosophy," in Contemporary Chinese Philosophy,

ed. Zhongying cheng (2002)., 28-30.


18/31

18

of them can abuse their power. Therefore what people will be struggling to get

freedom from will be society, groups, and customs. (134)

Yan then says that Mills book On Liberty was written for the English people who live in

a constitutional democracy, and this is why Mill puts his emphasis on freedom from

societyor the boundaries between self and society(134).34

Yan here clearly implies

that this is also the reason why Mills emphasis is not onliberty as non-domination,

because the English, living in a constitutional democracy, are free in that sense.So here

we can see the benefit of taking into account Yas other writings we now see that Yans

view expressed in his translation of Mill is only part of his views on liberty. It is not

surprising that one may get the impression that Yan is a liberal if one focuses on his

translation of Mill. What was remarkable is that Yan himself was aware of the liberal

conception of liberty in Mill and the republican conception of liberty he was talking

about in Lectures on Politics. This is a key passage from Lectures on Politics:

In the West, when one asks whether the people in a country are free or not, its realmeaning is to ask whether this country has upper and lower parliaments. (1284)

It is unfortunate that even though there is a large body of secondary literature in

both English and Chinese on Yan Fu and his political thought, no one discusses Yan Fu

as a republicanist. He has been characterized as a non-liberal and nationalist (Benjamin

Schwartz), a liberal (Max Ko-Wu Huang), or a communitarian (Wang Hui), to mention

some well-known interpretations, but never as a republicanist. Here is not the place to

engage these scholars readings of Yan in detail. I think there are at least two reasons

why Yans republican conception of liberty has been overlooked by scholars. The first is

that scholars tend to focus on Yans translation of Mills On Liberty. The second is that

34This must have also been Yans reason for changing his original title for the translation

On the Meaning of Liberty to On the Boundaries between Self and Society.


19/31

19

scholars tend to take for granted the negative-positive liberty framework(as in Max

Ko-wu Huangs case), or the liberal versus communitarianframework (as in Wang

Huis case), neither of which leaves room for the third republican conception of liberty.

3

We now look at some popular journals to show that Yan is not an isolated case. Some of

the people I mention in this section might not have been influenced by Yan. It seemed

that it is more likely that the republican conception of liberty was something in the air at

the time.

When Yan gave his lectures on politics in 1905, the republican conception of

liberty as non-slavery had already been a buzz word in popular print media since the late

1890s. We may start with an article titled China Must Learn the Idea of Liberty,

published on August 16th, 1899 in Qingyi bao (The China Discursions), a newspaper run

by the constitutional monarchists in exile in Japan. The author, Ou Jujia (1870-1911),

took for granted that the opposite of being free is to be a slave:

When Westerners speak of China, they say that the Chinese are not self-

independent and are slaves. [] I have reflected on this. To say that China is a

country of slaves is absolutely true. Why? All human beings have sovereignty,and are not to be dominated by others. If one is dominated by others, then one

must listen to the commands from others in all aspects of ones life. [] One isdependent on others as ones masters.

35

35Qichao Liang, ed. Qing Yi Bao Quan Bian 1898-1901 (Taibei, Taiwan: Wenhai chuban

she,1986)., volume 1, p. 49. The newspaper was founded in 1898 and edited by Liang

Qichao. Both Liang and Ou Jujia were Kang Youweis students, and core members of theconstitutional monarchist party. Ou later became a revolutionary.


20/31

20

In this same newspaper, there were two articles published around the same time, both of

which were entitled Of Slaves. The first stated:

Slaves are the opposite of citizens, and slave is a condemning label for a human

being. Citizens are those who have power for self-governing and dispositions forindependence, and have the public right to participate in politics. [] Slaves arethose who have no power for self-governing, nor heart for independence. In every

aspect of slaves lives, they have to obey their masters.36

The article also mentions that Montesquieu has said that the people in despotic countries

have the habits of the slaves, and that since the Qin and Han dynasties, the Chinese have

subjected themselves to domination for two thousand years.37

It can be argued, although I

cannot go into details here, that this view of Chinese history is not accurate from a

historians perspective. It is effective political rhetoric, but bad history. The other article

reiterated the same points; it spoke of how George Washington did not want to be a

slave of the British, and eventually led American people to found a republic.38

We can find the same ideas in the newspapers run by the revolutionary party in

exile in Japan as well. The following passage is from a 1901 article titled On Citizens,

published in Guomin bao (Citizens):

What is freedom? Roughly speaking, one is said to be free when one is notdominated. There are two ways in which one can be dominated: the first is to be

dominated by a monarchical power, and the second is by a foreign power. Francebecame free when it was liberated from the domination of the monarchical power,

and America became free when it was liberated from the domination of the

foreign power [Britain]. Therefore, those who are dominated by a monarchicalpower and cannot do what the French people have done are not citizens. Thosewho are dominated by foreign powers and cannot do what American people have

done are not citizens.39

36Ibid., volume 2, p. 7. This was written by Mai Menghua (1875-1915), one of Kangs

students, a member of the constitutional monarchist party.37

Ibid., volume 2, p. 9.38

Ibid., volume 2, p. 18.39On Citizens, Guomin bao (Citizens) volume 2, 1901. Reprinted in Nan et al Zhang,

ed. Xinhai Geming Qianshi Nian Jian Shi Lun Xuanji (a Selection of Essays on Politics


21/31

21

The anonymous author also reiterated the liberty as non-domination point we have seen

in the other articles: Slaves are willing to be dominated, whereas citizens love liberty.40

Furthermore, what defines and differentiates a citizen from a slave is not just their

attitudes towards liberty or domination; it is the power relations that define the status of

citizens and slaves: A slave is someone whose pleasure and fear are all dependent on

what others likes and dislikes.41

In other words, liberty is a feature of a power

relationship, and being a slave is a status.

In another newspaper article on slaves published in 1903 in another revolutionary

partys newspaper, it reiterated the liberty as non-domination point again: Slaves are the

opposite of citizens.42It also explicitly provoked the Roman concept of liberty: The

Roman laws regarded slaves as beasts.43

It claims that the history of China is three

thousand year history of slavery and that people are not free because the dictators treated

them as if they were cows and horses.44

4

Around the turn of the twentieth-century, there were already some anti-republicanists

who tried to dismiss the republican idea of liberty as non-domination by claiming that it

from the Ten-Year Period before the 1911 Revolution) (Beijing: Sanlian shudian,1963).,

volume 1:1, 73. The article is not signed.40Ibid., 72.41

Ibid., 74.42

On Slaves, Reprinted in ibid., volume 1:1, 702.43Ibid., 707.44Ibid.,702-3.


22/31

22

is foreign,Western, Not Chinese, and anti-Confucian.45

We can still find people

making this kind of claims today, for example, among those who promote political

Confucianism such as Jiang Qing.46

Is liberty as non-domination a Western or

Roman value, not a Chinese value?47

How one may answer this question, obviously, depends on how one understands

the term Chinesevalueand how one understands Chineseness.There are basically

two ways to define it. The first is to take Chinese valuesas exclusively consisting in

the values that can be found in traditional Chinese culture. There are at least two

problems with this approach. First, Chinese culture is large and contains multitudes. For

example, both Daoism and Confucianism are part of Chinese culture, but they endorse

different and conflicting values. Which ones should we choose as genuinely Chinese

values? Second, China has a long history, and has absorbed a lot of foreign cultures,

especially after the Han Dynasty (206BCE-220). Where should one draw the line, before

which one finds the authentic Chinese values and after which one only gets hybrid and

impure Chinese values? Most of contemporary cultural nationalists in China today tend

to define traditional Chinese culture as consisting exclusively in the original

Confucianism, articulated by Confucius. For example, Jiang Qing and some other

contemporary Confucians do not even take classical Daoism to be part of true Chinese

values,not to mention Chinese Buddhism, which was introduced from India since the

45See Zhang Zhidong, Exhortation to Study as well as a group of scholars in Hunan

province who contributed to an edited anti-republicanist pamphlet, Yu Su and Dehui Ye,Yi Jiao Cong Bian (1971). This was a reprint of the original book published in 1898.46

Jiang et al., A Confucian Constitutional Order : How China's Ancient Past Can Shape

Its Political Future.47It is interesting to note that similar arguments are made in the Constitutionalism debate

in 2013.


23/31

23

Eastern Han dynasty (25-220) and had already become an essential part of the fabric of

Chinese peoples life by Tang dynasty. So perhaps even Tang dynasty should not be

where the line ought to be drawn?

However, in contrast to this first definition, there can be a second way to define

Chinese values,which would take Chinese culture as a living tradition, and it would

also try to liberate us from what may be called the tyranny of the original.According to

this second way of defining Chinese values, Chinese Buddhism may count as having

become a genuine part of Chinese culture, even though it was originally a foreign culture

from India. In fact, Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in China today. It is

interesting to note that when Buddhist texts were systematically translated into Chinese in

Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220), early translators relied on Daoist terms to translate and

explain Buddhist terms, and as a result they might also project Daoist ideas into Buddhist

concepts. This is called the method of projection (fu hui fa). Fu hui is really a far-

fetched interpretation of a foreign concept, which reduces and distorts it into a familiar

native idea. It must be pointed out that the term fu hui (projection) did not have the

kind of negative connotation it has today. In fact, the method of fu hui was sometimes

justified by the fact that Buddhism had originated from China. Some Chinese

Buddhists genuinely believed that Laozi, the founder of Daoism, went to India and

founded Buddhism, and hence all the Buddhist ideas could be found in Daoism. However,

Chinese Buddhists eventually abandoned the method of fu hui, and the later translations

were much more accurate and faithful. They also came to realize that Buddhism was

different from Daoism, and could not have been founded by Laozi


24/31

24

We can find a similar pattern in the history of Western ideas in China. For

example, in the late nineteenth-century, many people believed that Western values are

Chinesevalues in the sense that they could be found in classical Chinese culture.

Having surveyed the writings of about 300 Chinese authors who discussed reform from

1840 to 1911, the historian Wang Ermin concludes that almost all of them try to show

that Western learning has originally come from China, or been anticipated by ancient

Chinese. This is the so-called xi xue zhong yuan shuo (the doctrine that Western

learning originated from China). For example, many of them insist that the parliamentary

system already existed in ancient China.

48

We find exactly such a thesis in Liang

Qichaos 1896 essay Gu yi yuan kao (Verifying the Existence of the Parliament in

Ancient China), published in Shiwu bao. This is a very short essay, and Liangs simple

and rather simple-minded argument is based on the literal meaning of yi yuan, the

Chinese term for parliament. Since yi means discussion, yuan means chamber,

the literal meaning of yiyuan is discussion chamber.Citing some passages from

classical texts, in which scholar-officials did discuss public affairs, Liang then easily

proves that there was indeed discussion chambers (yi yuan), namely the parliament, in

ancient China.

Having read Liangs essay, Yan Fu wrote a letter to Liang. Yans letter has been

lost but we do have Liang's reply in 1897, from which we can infer what Yan might have

48Ermin Wang, Wan Qing Zheng Zhi Si Xiang Shi Lun (Taibei Shi: Chu ban jian fa xing

ren Wang Ermin : Xue sheng shu ju zong jing xiao, 1969)., 31-50. The idea was so

pervasive that we can even find it in the homage Yan Fu and his fellow studentscomposed in 1871 to honor their English teacher James Carroll, an English man who

taught them navigation: Western nations originated with the Greeks, who had imported

them from China (Henry Noel Shore Teignmouth, The Flight of the Lapwing. A NavalOfficer's Jottings in China, Formosa and Japan (London,: Longmans, Green and co.,

1881)., 231). Yan later rejected this idea.


25/31

25

said to Liang. Yan seemed to have said that it is self-deceiving (zi qi) for Liang to say

that the parliament system already existed in ancient China. We know that Yan did use

self-deceptionto describe a similar attempt of projecting Chinese ideas into Western

concepts in his 1905 Lectures on Politics (931). He might or could have also said that

what Liang did was fu hui (projection, far-fetched and distorted interpretation), a term

Yan borrowed from Buddhism to refer to another similar attempt (1269). Later in his life,

Following Yan, Liang would come to see fu hui as the worst intellectual mistake caused

by the worse kind of intellectual vice.

Liang could also have changed his mind about the method of fu hui by

recognizing how much damage Zhang Zhidong was able to do to the reform agenda by

using the same fu hui method. Zhang has the following to say about min quan (peoples

sovereignty) and yi yuan (the parliament) in Exhortation to Study:

An investigation of the origin of the doctrine of min quan (peoples sovereignty)

in foreign countries reveals that min quan simply means that a state should have adiscussion chamber (yi yuan) where folks can express their public opinions and

communicate their group feelings. It is intended for folks to express their feelings,

not to wield their sovereignty. Translators have changed its meaning, calling it

min quan(peoples sovereignty). (9722)

As we can see, like Liangs argumentin his essay on yi yuan, Zhangs argument is also

based on the literal meaning of yi yuan (discussion chamber). Since Zhang wrote this

only three years after Liangs essay on yi yuan, which was published in the newspaper

Shiwu bao, of which Zhang was the main patron, it is possible that Zhang has learned this

way of (mis)understanding of the parliament from Liangs essay.

Zhang used the same strategy to deal with the conception of liberty (zi you) as

non-domination, which is to turn this new and radical idea into something old and much

less radical:


26/31

26

In foreign countries today there is zi you dang (liberal party). The western word

actually sounds li-bo-er-te [liberty], which means that everything must be fair(gong dao) and be beneficial for the mass. It is fine if we translate liberal partyas gong lun dang (public discussion party), but it is wrong to translate it as zi

you(free). (9723)

So it seems that we have to honestly acknowledge that liberty (zi you) as non-domination

is indeed a radically new idea, and it is not an idea that can be found in traditional

Chinese culture.49

The most crucial point here is that this does not necessarily mean that liberty as

non-domination cannot become a Chinesevalue. One can draw such a conclusion only

when one adopts the first way of defining Chinese values. However, if one adopts the

second way of defining Chinese values, one should conclude that, like Chinese

Buddhism, Chinese republicanism has become an integrated part of a living tradition,

although, compared with Chinese Buddhism, its one hundred-year long history is

relatively shorter.

By taking seriously the fact that the republican concept of liberty as non-

domination concept already has had a history in China, one may sidestep the question of

whether the concept is Western or Chinese. If one indeed takes that history seriously,

one should then ask different questions. For example, one should ask: Why did the

republican idea of liberty as the opposite of slavery or domination spread like wild fire in

China? On which nerve did it touch? Why did it speak to the Chinese or why did it ring

true to them around the turn of the twentieth century?

49If this is correct, it seems that Pettits strategy of using Sens capabilities as an analogy

to show that liberty as non-domination is a universal value might not have worked in

Zhang and Yans time. For the idea of capacities seems to be a much less radical ideathan liberty as non-domination. Please see Pettits paper included in this volume.


27/31

27

To take just one example, the 1901 article On Citizens, which we discussed in

the last section. We now may notice that the authors understanding of domination and

oppression is based on his or her experience of a master-slave power relationship,

knowledge of slavery as a legal institution, the experience of the Chinese Coolies, as well

as mens domination over women:

When those who rule become masters then those what are ruled become slaves.

When aristocrats become masters then common people become slaves. When free

people become masters then unfree people become slaves. When men becomemasters then women become slaves. When this is the case, we call it a state of

slaves. The opposite is true of the citizens. [A state of citizens] transcends the

boundary between the ruling and the ruled; hence everyone is a ruler and is ruled

at the same time. It transcends the boundary between aristocrats and commonpeople; hence everyone is a king and a servant at the same time. It transcends the

boundary between free and unfree people; hence there are no laws that sanctionslavery, and no foreign workers that are like the Chinese Coolies. It transcends

the boundary between men and women; hence not only men but also women have

the right to participate in governing.50

The discrimination against the Chinese Coolies in America was widely reported in print

media at the time.51

It is very likely that the author was referring to the American laws

that sanction slavery. The Chinese translation of Uncle Toms Cabinwas published in

1901, and immediately became a best-seller. It apparently struck a nerve. Why? In a 1904

newspaper article Reading Uncle Toms Cabin, the author says that the translators were

weeping while they translated the book, and it was not only because they felt sad about

the suffering of the black slaves but also because they felt sad that the Chinese people

50On Citizens, in Zhang, ed. Xinhai Geming Qianshi Nian Jian Shi Lun Xuanji (a

Selection of Essays on Politics from the Ten-Year Period before the 1911 Revolution).,73-4; emphasis added.51Zhang Zhidong also mentioned it in his 1898 book Exhortation to Study (9713)


28/31

28

were becoming slaves as well.52

The author also says, I read Uncle Toms Cabin, using

the tears I cried for the black people to cry for the yellow people, using the back peoples

past to cry for the yellow peoples present.53

Why did the author identify with the black

slaves in America?

It is almost certain that the author identified with black slaves because he or she

was thinking that China would soon become an unfree country, dominated by foreign

powers. The author must have thought about a series of defeats China had experienced,

such as the defeat by the British in 1842, by the French in 1984-5, and by the Japanese in

1895. The same can be said about Yan Fu. We mentioned earlier that Yan Fu went to

Fuzhou Navy Yard School to study English and navigation in 1867-71. The school was

established to train young people for the Fuzhou dockyard. Yan was obviously aware that

when China and France engaged in a war over Vietnam in 1884-5 the French destroyed

the warships built at the Fuzhou dockyard within an hour. Yan also had friends and

relatives that died in the war.

So it seems that it was based on their genuine experience and understanding of

people who are being dominated, as well as their own genuine fear and anxiety of China

being and becoming dominated by the foreign powers that the Chinese intellectuals

understood the conception of liberty as non-domination, and why this foreign

conception spoke to them so compellingly. This is why even when we read their writings

today we rarely have the feeling that they were faking it. On the contrary we feel that it

makes sense that they were attracted by the conception of liberty as non-domination,

52Reading Uncle Toms Cabin, Reprinted inZhang, ed. Xinhai Geming Qianshi Nian

Jian Shi Lun Xuanji (a Selection of Essays on Politics from the Ten-Year Period beforethe 1911 Revolution)., volume 1:1, 870.53Reading Uncle Toms Cabin, ibid. 871.


29/31

29

appropriating it as their own conception. In a history of liberty in modern China, a larger

project, of which this paper is a part, I show that we can make the best sense of modern

Chinese history in terms of liberty as non-domination. The desire and passion for liberty

in this republican sense has been one of the driving forces in modern Chinese history. It

seems that this is the ultimate justification of the Chinese republican tradition.

Bibliography

Angle, Stephen C. Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy : Toward Progressive

Confucianism. Cambridge: Polity, 2012.Bai, Tongdong. China : The Political Philosophy of the Middle Kingdom, World Political

Theories. London ; New York: Zed Books, 2012.Bell, Daniel. China's New Confucianism : Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing

Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Bellamy, Richard. Political Constitutionalism : A Republican Defence of the

Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Chan, Joseph Cho Wai. Confucian Perfectionism : A Political Philosophy for Modern

Times, The Princeton-China Series.

Cheng, Zhongying, and Nicholas Bunnin. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy. Malden,Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Cohen, Paul A. Discovering History in China : American Historical Writing on the

Recent Chinese Past, Studies of the East Asian Institute. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1984.Collingwood, R. G. An Essay on Philosophical Method. Rev. ed. Oxford and New York:

Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 2005.

Fan, Ruiping. Reconstructionist Confucianism : Rethinking Morality after the West,Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture. Dordrecht ; London: Springer,

2010.

Honohan, Iseult. Civic Republicanism, The Problems of Philosophy. London ; New York:Routledge, 2002.

Huang, Kewu. The Meaning of Freedom : Yan Fu and the Origins of Chinese Liberalism.

Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2008.

Jiang, Qing, Daniel Bell, Ruiping Fan, and Edmund Ryden. A Confucian ConstitutionalOrder : How China's Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future, The Princeton-

China Series. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012.

Kang, Xiaoguang.Benevolent Government (Ren Zheng): The Third Path of Chinas

Political Development. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Ltd, 2005.


30/31


31/31

Zhang, Nan et al, ed. Xinhai Geming Qianshi Nian Jian Shi Lun Xuanji (a Selection of

Essays on Politics from the Ten-Year Period before the 1911 Revolution). Beijing:Sanlian shudian, 1963.

Zhang, Zhidong, and Samuel Isett) (tr. Woodbridge. China's Only Hope : An Appeal by

Her Greatest Viceroy, Chang Chih-Tung, with the Sanction of the Present

Emperor. Edinburgh ; London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1901.Zhang, Zhidong, Huafeng Sun, Shuyi Yuan, and Bingxin Li. Zhang Zhidong Quan Ji. Di

1 ban. ed. 12 vols. Shijiazhuang Shi: Hebei ren min chu ban she, 1998.

xiao 2014 republican beginnings liberty as non-domination in the chinese republicanist...

Documents