The Fall of Qin: A Confucian Perspective - Essay Example

The Fall of Qin: A Confucian Perspective Introduction. No Chinese dynasty was so short-lived and so much maligned by the subsequent historiography than that of Qin (221 – 206 BCE). Initially the westernmost of the domains beholden to the House of Zhou, the Qin and its rulers managed to weather the storms of the Warring Kingdoms period (481 – 221 BCE) and to smash all its competitors, culminating in the establishment of a new, unified empire for the whole of China in 221 BCE. However, even though the Qin Dynasty proved the real beginning of the Imperial China with its elaborate and centralized system of governance, it was always cited as an example of tyranny by Confucian scholars. The present essay will attempt to analyze the reasons for such animosity and the final codification of Confucianism, rather than Qin’s Legalism, as the official ideology of the Chinese ruling elites. The theoretical foundations of the Qin policies. The period of Eastern Zhou (772 – 221 BCE) saw the development of a number of philosophical schools that significantly departed from the previous mythological and ritualistic understanding of the connection between the ruler, the sacred (or Heaven, Tian), and the people. While Confucianism, with its emphasis on the ritual (li) and humanity (ren), finally prevailed, until 3rd century BCE it was far from ‘orthodox’ or ‘uniform’ school of thoughts. Its main competitors included the proto-Taoist teachings of Huang-Lao school that traced their legacy to legendary Yellow Emperor (Huang-di) and quasi-legendary Laozi, on the one hand, and the rationalist and pragmatic teachings of Mo-di (Moism, or Mohism) and the Legalists (fa jia), on the other. The latter doctrine was most fundamentally expressed in the works by Shang Yang, Shen Dao, et al. The Book of Lord Shang (Shang chün shu), written by Shang Yang when the latter was the Qin Duke’s chief adviser, may be viewed as the orthodox exposition of Legalism. As it was Legalism that became the official doctrine of the Qin court under Qin Shi-Huang-di, it is pertinent to analyze its teachings so as to contrast them with the Confucian ones. Such comparison will help us to understand the degree of incompatibility of these two doctrines. The Legalists’ main preoccupation was with a rational ruling of the state. While previous strands of social thought emphasize the ritualistic aspects of the ruler’s function, the followers of fa jia demanded the prudent and all-encompassing control by the State over all individual life and all social classes. The ruler was to stand above the previously cherished customary laws and all “old” customs and rituals in general. His will was to be executed on the pain of death, disfigurement or any other similar cruel punishment. The Qin criminal code, with its harsh penalties for even minor transgressions, was in this respect the epitome of a Legalist understanding of the State’s abilities to quell each and every form of dissent. This emphasis on punishment stemmed from the Legalists’ belief that human nature was fundamentally corrupt and wicked, so that the State and its rulers as embodiment of the Heaven’s will and order on the Earth, were to suppress the immoral tendencies of the subjects by harsh system of punishment, on the one hand, and to induce them to obey the Heaven-instituted order by the respective rewards, if need be. In total, though, in the view of Legalist school the majority of common people were irredeemable in their ways, so that a strong State should always be ready to mete out punishments for their transgressions, as it will be pointless to rely on education to reform them. While the traditional Ancient Chinese society that developed under Shang and Zhou placed great importance on the concepts of noble birth and nobility in general, the Legalists either ignored or even mocked such ideas, viewing all the subjects of the State, irrespective of their descent, education, etc., as the useful pawns to be used and discarded, if need be, for the greater good of the State, as defined by its ruler. The allegiance of all subjects was to be paid to the State as the supreme and uniform authority, rather than to former princes and dukes of the Zhou period (Morton and Lewis 45). The ruler of the State was not to be bound by any moral scruples or devotion to ancient customs in executing the measures necessary for the glory and expansion of the State. In the words of Shang chün shu, “if the people are stronger than the government, the state is weak; if the government is stronger than the people, the army is strong” (109). This maxim is indeed the most precise definition of the core concern of Legalists with regard to the State and the people relations. The Legalists, and their Qin disciples, viewed the focus on antiquity and tradition – typical for the majority of Ancient Chinese schools of thoughts – as superfluous and potentially subversive. This belief found its most well-known expression in Qin Shi-Huang-di’s edict on burning of the unlicensed books. While both Confucians and Mohists placed emphasis on social harmony and unity of thoughts of the rulers and the ruled, it was Legalists who found it most expedient to force such harmony and unity upon the State’s subjects with the use of most violent means, if necessary. Finally, the Legalists were staunch supporters of military expansion and centralization. In their view, the Son of Heaven should have directly ruled the world, conquering the barbarians and subjecting them to the power of a superior State he led. Numerous attempts at military conquest conducted by Qin Shi-Huang-di could be better understood, if this element of Legalist doctrine is taken into account. In addition, the military was lauded by Legalists as a pinnacle of the State and the paragon of obedience, as opposed to untrustworthy and scheming scholars and learned men. This militarism and anti-intellectualism had its bearing on the policy of the Qin with regard to elevating or demoting officials and whole group of nobles. It was military prowess and financial contributions for the furtherance of the State’s power that counted most, rather than study of classics or devotion to rituals. The Confucian views as opposed to Legalist ones. As it may be seen, the Legalists consistently denied or eschewed any references to morals and tradition, believing them to be either unnecessary or outright harmful (“Sophistry and cleverness are an aid to lawlessness; rites and music are symptoms of dissipations and licence”, Shang chün shu 109). In this, they differed sharply with the Confucians that followed a drastically different approach. In a Confucian theory of the State, as expounded by Confucius and Mencius, the State is an instrument, rather than a goal in itself. Its main raison d’etre was to maintain the connection between Heavens and Earth by following the rituals (li) and instilling humanity (ren) in the hearts and minds of its subjects. Consequently, the ruler was not to use his authority for arbitrary ends or even for simple increase of the State’s greatness and power; his function was to “lead [the people] by means of virtue and regulate them through rituals” (“Chinese Civilization” 21). The government regulations and punishments were considered insufficient and even harmful for the purpose of elevating the people’s sense of shame and moral standards. Furthermore, the Legalist emphasis on military efficiency and rationalized governance was alien to Confucians; according to them, the rulers were to direct the apparatus of governance proceeding from the requirements of ancient rituals and customs, rather than from rationalist concerns of power politics. The Confucian thought on the State was characterized by the consistent dislike of military-centered policies; when Confucius was asked which factors of the State governance may be neglected first if need be, he replied that it was the army that should be eliminated in such a case (“Chinese Civilization” 21). Another important point of Confucian state theory was its tangible repudiation of governmental activism that was considered inimical to the ways of Heaven. Praising Shun, one of the legendary rulers of old, Confucius credited him with the art of ruling by simply ensuring that he was respected and not interfering with the ways and customs of the common people (“Chinese Civilization” 22). Mencius, the most celebrated follower of Confucius, repudiated the benefit-based policies of the State, emphasizing that these lead to internal discord and unceasing competition between the superiors and the minor officials. It was the “right’ and custom-based rule that he preferred, and such a concept was to be followed by all other Confucian thinkers. Finally, and most importantly, the Confucians denounced excessive social mobility and the levying of equal duties on persons of all orders, viewing these practices as akin to those of “the northern tribes” (“Chinese Civilization” 23). It is easy to see that the Qin reward and tax system was anathema to them. Conclusion. Considering the abrupt end of Qin Dynasty under the waves of unrest and open rebellion, it is easy to grasp why Legalism, which served as that empire’s ideological basis, was easily discredited and replaced by the Confucian creed. Confucianism was based on a ‘soft-power’, rather than ‘hard-power’ approach, and made it possible to use the ideological instruments of ritual and tradition, rather than the blind force, to maintain the Imperial rule. The Confucian criticism of the Qin was thus based on the latter’s neglect for rituals and traditions, its emphasis of military power and centralized bureaucracy, rather than influence of learned scholars and traditional elites, and its mercantile and pragmatic understanding of the State and its social functions. This criticism was to endure in all subsequent depiction of the Qin rule in Chinese historiography (Morton and Lewis 48). Works Cited Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. Ed. by Patricia B. Ebrey. 2nd ed., rev. and exp. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Print. Morton, W. Scott, and Lewis, Charlton M. China: Its History and Culture. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2004. Print. Shang chün shu [The Book of Lord Shang]. Ed. by J.J.L. Duyvendak. London: The Lawbook Exchange, 2003. Print. Read More