The Odd Couple: Confucianism and Legalism

Throughout China's history, philosophy, namely that of Confucianism, has been the foundation for the ethics, social interactions, and governmental policies of the Chinese people. As a result, Confucianism has been the most discussed and studied when learning about Chinese history and it's influences. Because of this prominence, Confucianism has been commonly perceived as the sole philosophy to shape China into the country it is today. However, contrary to this misconception, in the background was another philosophy that has played a role equally in shaping Chinese society; this philosophy was Legalism. Always in the background, Legalism was the yin to Confucianism's yang and was commonly perceived as being non-influential or non-existent after the Ch‘in Dynasty (221-206 B.C.E.), a view that Confucianists would whole-heartedly endorse.

Though they are largely considered the great Satans of Chinese history, the group of philosophers and administrators known as the Legalists represent a first in Chinese government: the application of a philosophical system to government. And despite their dismal failure and subsequent demonization throughout posterity, the philosophical and political innovations they practiced had a lasting effect on the nature of Chinese government. When coupled with Confucianism, the spectra of societal concerns were addressed: one, legal in nature to keep the people in line, and the other, to promote their growth.

At the Heart of the Matter
The basic starting point for the early Confucianists (Confucius and Mencius) was that human beings were fundamentally good; every human was born with te, or "moral virtue." (Murphey, 76) The third great Confucianist of antiquity, Hsün Tzu (fl. 298-238 B.C.E.), believed exactly the opposite and contrasted to his peers by declaring that all human beings were born fundamentally depraved, selfish, greedy, and lustful. (de Bary, 100) However, this was not some dark and pessimistic view of humanity, for Hsün Tzu believed that humans could be made good through acculturation. His pupil, Han Fei Tzu, whom also believed in this perception of human nature, began from the same starting point, yet determined that humans are made good by state laws. For Han Fei Tzu, the only way to check human selfishness and depravity was to establish laws that bountifully rewarded actions that benefit others and the state and ruthlessly punish all actions that harmed others or the state. (Chan, 251) For Confucius, power was something to be wielded for the benefit of the people, but for Han Fei, the benefit of the people lay in the ruthless control of individual selfishness. Since even the emperor cannot be counted on to behave in the interests of the people, that is, since even the emperor can be selfish, it is necessary that the laws be supreme over even the emperor. (Hook, 312) Ideally, if the laws are written well enough and enforced aggressively, there is no need of individual leadership, for the laws alone are sufficient to govern a state. This concept was otherwise known as wu-wei or “non-action” and from the Taoism’s Lao-zi, a rhymed philosophical text. (Owen, 5)

Legalism in Practice
When the Ch'in gained imperial power after decades of civil war, they adopted the ideas of the Legalists as their political theory. In practice, under legalists such as Li Ssu (d. 208 B.C.E.) and Chao Kao, the Legalism of the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B.C.E) involved a uniform totalitarianism. (Morton, 43) First of all, the country was divided into thirty-six, later fourty-eight, commandaries or military districts with three officials who were appointed from the center, and acted as checks upon one another. They were, in turn, to administrate the people who were conscripted to labor for long periods of time on state projects, such as the imperial tomb, irrigation projects, or the series of defensive walls in northern China, which we know as the Great Wall. (Morton, 46) Subject to a uniform law and taxation, all disagreement with the government was made a capital crime; all alternative ways of thinking, which the Legalists saw as encouraging the natural fractiousness of humanity, were banned. Punishment, which was made severe and harsh as to dissuade these non-favorable activities, included mutilations, brandings, the chopping off of hands or feet, castrations, strangulations and decapitations. (Morton, 47) Ultimately, the policies would lead to deaths of thousands while under conscription, fighting foreign enemies (the Xiongnu), building a defense line in the north (i.e. The Great Wall), and while building public works. (Hook, 150) As a result, eventually the harsh policies would lead to the downfall of the dynasty itself after only fourteen years in power. Local peoples began to revolt and the government did nothing about it, for local officials feared to bring these revolts to the attention of the authorities since the reports themselves might be construed as a criticism of the government and so result in their executions. (Morton, 49) The emperor's court did not discover these revolts until it was far too late, and the Ch'in and the policies they pursued were discredited for the rest of Chinese history. But it is not so easy to dismiss Legalism as this short, anomalous, unpleasant period of totalitarianism in Chinese history, for the Legalists established ways of doing government that would profoundly influence later government.

Fundamental Influences
The double handle of Legalism’s reward and punishment failed due to it’s severe and oppressive nature, ultimately leading to rebellions, rivalries between statesmen, the resurrection of independent kingdoms, and as well, China being an infant state. However, many influential precedents were set and would influence its development over the next two thousand years. (Hook, 150) First, they adopted Mo Tzu's ideas about utilitarianism; the only occupations that people should be engaged in should be occupations that materially benefited others, particularly agriculture. Most of the Ch'in laws were attempts to move people from useless activities, such as scholarship or philosophy, to useful ones. This utilitarianism would survive as a dynamic strain of Chinese political theory up to and including the Maoist revolution. (Owen, 8) Second, the Legalists invented what we call "rule of law," that is, the notion that the law is supreme over every individual, including individual rulers. The law should rule rather than individuals, who have authority only to administer the law. (Hook, 312) Third, the Legalists adopted Mo Tzu's ideas of uniform standardization of law and culture. (Chan, 226) In order to be effective, the law has to be uniformly applied; no-one is to be punished more or less severely because of their social standing. This notion of "equality before the law" would, with some changes, remain a central concept in theories of Chinese government. (Morton, 49) As well, in their quest for uniform standards, the Ch'in undertook a project of standardizing Chinese culture: the writing system, the monetary system, weights and measures, the philosophical systems (which they mainly accomplished by destroying rival schools of thought and by the infamous book burning of 213 B.C.E.). (Morton, 47) Despite all these accomplishments, Legalism and the Ch’in Dynasty lasted only two generations as the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E.-220 C.E.) and Confucianism succeeded them and denounced their predecessor and his cruelties. However, almost all the harsh laws, the Ch’in code of collective responsibility, and the labor services system of corvee labor was kept. However, how could the two philosophies, Confucianism and Legalism, coexist? To answer this, we first must address the tenants of Confucianism, which was founded by its namesake, Confucius.

Confucianism: The Way of Sages
More than any other human being on the face of the earth, Confucius laid down a pattern of thinking followed by more people for more generations than one can even conceive. No matter what religion, no matter what form of government, the Chinese (and most other East Asian civilizations) and their way of thinking can in some way be shown to have Confucian elements about them. (Murphey, 74) But Confucius was no religious leader nor did he claim any special divine status. He was, in fact, a relatively ordinary person; his family was from the lesser aristocracy that had fallen on extremely hard times when he was born in 551 B.C. in the province of Lu. (Murphey, 75) He was born into the family of K'ung and was given the name Ch'iu; in later life he was called "Master Kung": K'ung Fu-tzu, from which the Latin form, Confucius, is derived. De Bary, 15) He began a startlingly successful early political career as a young man, rising quickly in the administrative ranks, but fell out of favor fast. Although his intense personal goal was to restore peace and orderliness to the province (he lived during the chaotic Warring States Period of 430-221 B.C.E.), he found himself dismissed from government early on. He never returned to public life. Instead he turned to teaching, hoping that he could change the world by enlightening its leaders at a young age. (de Bary, 16) His teachings produced students that were to be praised, from which, recorded his teachings and have been transmitted through the generations in what is titled as the Analects. (Morton, 33)
The Confucian method characterizes all Chinese learning down to the present day; its fundamental tenet is the unwavering belief in the perfectibility of human beings through learning. Confucius had one overwhelming message: if we are to achieve a state of orderliness and peace, we need to return to traditional values of virtue. These values are based entirely on one concept: jen, which is best translated as "humaneness," but can also mean "humanity," "benevolence," "goodness," or "virtue." (Chan, 16) This humaneness is a relatively strange concept to Western eyes, because it is not primarily a practicable virtue. (Morton, 36) Rather, the job of the "gentleman," ch'üntzu, was to concentrate on the highest concepts of behavior even when this is impractical or foolish. Like his contemporaries, Confucius believed that the human order in some way reflected the divine order, or the patterns of heaven. More than anything, for Confucius the ancients understood the order and hierarchy of heaven and earth; as a result, Confucius established the Chinese past as an infallible model for the present. (Chan, 16) As a result, it is imperative of the people to determine the right pattern to live and govern by through studying the sage-kings Shun and Yao and their mode of life and government whom had received a Heavenly Mandate (“tien-ming”). By following these rituals scrupulously, for the pattern of heaven is most explicitly inscribed on the various rituals, li, the conduct of everyday life is prescribed. (Chan, 16) Neglecting ritual, or doing rituals incorrectly, demonstrated a moral anarchy or disorder of the most corrupt kind. These heavenly patterns were also inscribed in the patterns of music and dance, yüeh, and are constantly discussed in Confucian writings. Confucius believed that understanding and practicing solemn music and dance could attain order in this life, which embody the humaneness and wisdom of their composers, who understood perfectly the order of the world and heaven. (de Bary, 28)

Cohabitation of Virtue and Vise-grip
As you can see, Confucianism and Legalism are diametrically opposed. From the outset not only did their basic fundamental perceptions of human nature clash, but also did their views of government and the importance of history repel one another. For Confucianism, scholars, jen, were to be the role models of society. They embodied humanity and were on the constant pursuit of self-cultivation, while the highest role model was the emperor. For the Legalists, as was evident in the book burnings of 213 B.C.E., scholarly pursuits was to be frowned upon and sole mindless commitment was for to the state alone. The people, Legalist’s believed, were only interested in their own gain, thus the two handles of rewards and punishment. (Chan, 256) Even the emperor was subject to laws, a concept foreign to Confucianists, for they believed that he was the Son of Heaven (“tien-zi”) and subject to Heaven’s own laws or Mandate (“tien-ming”). (Hook, 303) Because of the Confucian belief that human nature is inherently good, government officials were relied upon to be virtuous and responsible, while caring for the people he administered. Legalists advocated a system of “big brother”, where one official kept a check on another, and so on. Han Fei Tzu, a prominent Legalist, went so far as to support a system of spies whom reported directly to the emperor in order to ensure compliance through fear of punishment. Rites and the role of history was also an area of contention. For the Confucianists, rites were derived from the Golden Age of which mystical kings ruled. (Morton, 43) As a result, Confucius believed they were to be models of behavior. Legalists, however, opposed that perception, and during the Ch’in Dynasty, destroyed hereditary rights and customs in favor of looking towards the future, rather than the past. (Morton, 49) Han Fei Tzu claimed that “those who openly base their arguments on the authority of the ancient kings.. are men either of stupidity or perjury.” (Chan, 253) In lieu of all those conflicts, however, after the fall of the Ch’in in 209 B.C.E., the Han Dynasty restored Confucianism, denounced his predecessor for his cruelties, yet kept almost all the policies that had led to the decline of Ch’in in the first place. The reason behind this dichotomy is that although they are intrinsically opposed, their philosophies compliment each other when selectively applied to government and the peoples within it.

On one hand, the Legalist severity and centralization philosophies was needed in order to keep a fledgling country together, while on the other hand, the Han rulers encouraged the Confucian tradition of humane statecraft. If the humane aspect of government did not accomplish its goals, the threat of severe of punishment ensured compliance, thus the Legalist machine took over where Confucian diplomacy would fail. Society wise, Confucian ethics promoted growth for the people that Legalism would otherwise have suppressed. Upward mobility was achieved through the Civil Service Exams and based on the Five Classics of Confucianism. (Morton, 64) These Classics are believed to have been edited by Confucius himself, and as a result, the virtues and ideals he endorsed were transmitted (e.g. filial piety). Confucian reverence for rites and history was also accomplished, as role models were set through the shi, or scholar-gentry, whom learned from Confucius’ writings and his stress on the past, while Legalist severity maintained a forward looking prospective through such endeavors as military expansion and public works. Subsequently, the Legalist role also ensured that people were provided to defend its borders against raiding foreigners, to build great palaces and irrigation ducts, as well as, to expand towards the north and the south. Legalism, still, maintained its control over people through the severity of its punishments, thus creating law-abiding citizens preoccupied with humane pursuits. As a double-edged sword, Confucianism cut into the people with kindness and civility, while it punished those whom opposed with Legalist severity. All in all, Confucianism and Legalism created a dual system, though oppressive, promoted a new found glory in Han China that later dynasties would reflect upon and measure their growth and success against.

Conclusion
Throughout history, philosophies have always been behind governmental rule and their implementation of decisions in order to maximize and allocate resources. As for most of Asia, the main resource concerned is manpower. China is no exception. The fundamental division between Confucianism and Legalism is the nature of these people. Are they inherently good? Or are they evil? In order to control this resource, the two schools formed, as one was a response to environmental chaos and the other to dominate and control. Without Legalism and its emphasis on the subordination of others, China would have never been unified. Without Confucianism, the fundamental fabric of Asian ethics may have never come to be. Even though of their intrinsic differences, the two philosophies have been able to coexist despite Legalism’s disappearance since the fall of the Ch’in Dynasty, a sentiment that Confucian historians and scholars had a role in endorsing. On one hand, the people were governed with humaneness, while on the other, if all else fails, legalism was able to suppress discontent. When applied to a newly formed county, each philosophy was required, for one was used to quell the people and lead them towards a new era of Chinese history, while the other to ensure their obedience. As a result, both aspects have been influential and prevalent, as China’s history would witness throughout the ages and up to the present.