Zhuang Zi, an ancient Chinese philosopher (c. 400BC), more commonly known as a pioneer of Daoism, spiritual theologian and good humored promoter for peace during the Warring States conflicts could arguably also be regarded as the world’s first Libertarians and his work regarded not just a spiritual guide, but the musings of one of the many theorists of the time who sought to understand the underlying principles of human society and its cultural changes.
It is quite incredible to think that a man who lived so long ago, a time whereupon in the UK we were building walls made from mud around what was a tiny hamlet later to be known as ‘London’, had such a timeless and sharp analysis of the relationship between a government and its people. In The Zhuang Zi, the book written by Zhuang Zi and allegedly some of his followers, frequent references are made to the opposition of the rule of large government, not just poetic Daoist poems.
In ‘Let it Be, Leave it Alone’, a title that quite literally shares the translation of the political term ‘Laissez-Faire’, Zhuangzi opens with a classically libertarian comment on jurisdiction:
“I have heard of letting the world be, of leaving it alone; I have never heard of governing the world. You let it be for fear of corrupting the inborn nature of the world; you leave it alone for fear of distracting the Virtue of the world. If the nature of the world is not distracted, why should there be any governing of the world?”
It’s important we remember that the nature of the ‘world’ in this case is world of the Warring States and ‘nature’, it could therefore be argued, refers to society in its natural, uninterrupted state. It would seem that the passage is implying that the intervention with or artificial control of society by a government can consequently upset it’s temperament - as was the very case during the Warring States period. Additionally, some contemporary libertarians have gone so far as to suggest it is this very passage that epitomises Zhuangzi’s anarchic tendencies and shows he embellished a devotion to laissez faire and opposition to state rule, something he will have no doubt got from ‘Lao Zi’ (also known as Lao-Tzu in another romanisation of Chinese), his ‘master’. Whilst this indeed implies Zhuangzi took inspiration from his predecessors, the importance in this case should be stressed on his political, not spiritual influence when the political situation is taken into account. Furthermore, although some schools of thought have argued that Zhuangzi should be interpreted only as literature on a superficial or even religious level, it is also important we understand and contextualise the environment and politics of the period of history in which it was written and how this may have affected the prose.
It is this anti-government rhetoric can only be a reaction to the distress Zhuangzi saw in society around him, as the competitive governments of the Warring States battled for control over each other and imposed their own ideas on other cultures in an effort to gain further power. As an intellectual and former official and government insider, it’s likely Zhuangzi will have expressed his frustrations in his texts in order to voice and preserve his opposition.
Many of Zhuangzi’s philosophies also address the issue of personal perception which, when modeled on society, offers an interesting insight into the importance of seeing the world through other eyes. One of Zhaung Zi’s more well-known piece of prose is, on face value, seemingly quite bizarre. In short, Zhuang Zi dreams he is a butterfly and wakes up to question whether or not he is actually awake or if he is a butterfly dreaming he is Zhuang Zi, waking up. Quite a head-twister that one.
“Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakeable Chuang Chou. But he didn’t know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.”
The element of perception is fairly apparent when considered alongside the other libertarian connotations of the book of Zhuangzi. That is to say, Zhuangzi could have also been commenting on the importance on viewing oneself and others from a different perspective, rather than just focusing on oneself in an individualistic, self-interested way. Politically, this ties in to the libertarian need for the people and government to recognise and appreciate the differences between each other and cultural boundaries. This again rallies against the kind of political expediency practiced by governments during the Warring States period that disregarded differences between cultures and people in favour of a purely self-interested, almost neo-conservative policy of governing for social and economic profit.
There’s a chance Zhuangzi may have chosen to use odd and cryptic metaphors like this in his writing as a consequence of his apparent frustration with the situation he found himself living in. That is to say, Zhuangzi could have been humoring and mocking those he felt responsible for the crises of the Warring States in the way he knew best: the non-action, Daoist way and the power of intellect!
This issue of perception is dealt with in Zhuangzi again in a later chapter regarding a conversation he has with fellow philosopher Hui zi:
“Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were strolling along the dam of the Hao River when Chuang Tzu said, “See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That’s what fish really enjoy!” Hui Tzu said, “You’re not a fish-how do you know what fish enjoy?” Chuang Tzu said, “You’re not I, so how do you know I don’t know what fish enjoy?” Hui Tzu said, “I’m not you, so I certainly don’t know what you know. On the other hand, you’re certainly not a fish-so that still proves you don’t know what fish enjoy!” Chuang Tzu said, “Let’s go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy-so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao.”
Once again, Zhuangzi argues the point that you cannot possibly understand how someone else thinks or works without perceiving them from another point of view. There is also an additional argument regarding the fact that Zhuangzi claims to understand the fish by ‘standing here beside the [river] Hao’. That is to say, without being up-close to the fish and sharing their environment, he would otherwise be unable to gauge their emotions. When viewed in context, one could apply the same rules to society. Due to their isolated and aristocratic nature, the leaders of the Warring States governments were far removed from the people under their control.
This led to a complete separation of the power from the people as is the case under an authoritarian government such as the Warring States governments. A parallel could be drawn between the relationship between Zhuangzi and the fish with that of the government and the people. Zhuangzi was clearly intending to illustrate the fact that, if the rulers were to lower themselves to the same level as the people below them and selflessly become immersed in their environment, only then would they be able to see that understanding what promotes harmony within the people, is ultimately what promotes harmony throughout society as a whole.
This article was edited together from an essay I wrote for the SOAS Chinese History & Culture course
