The sociopolitical implications of philosophical thought are often paramount in our discussions of their ideas. Ultimately, ancient philosophy has had a profound impact on the ways in which modern academia and society at large view contemporary economics, politics, and societal culture. It is often acknowledged that Greek thought and reason have a basis in the generation of Individualism in Western politics, and in contrast, Confucian philosophy profoundly impacts the collective nature of Chinese politics and society. However, the implications of Daoism are often ignored in this assessment. Many Western theorists’ fascination with Daoism is predicated on its lack of a rigid philosophical message, and often cite the Daoist philosophy of wuwei (inaction/non-interference) as a precursor to anarchical individualism. However, while this is an interesting assertion, it is somewhat simplistic since it ignores historical manifestations of Daoism, and often misunderstands the ways in which Daoist thinkers view the state. Ultimately, my essay will argue that while Daoism does in many ways advocate for an individualistic capitalism, it is by no means an expression of an anarchist’s vision, and its political implications are more akin to the philosophy of Deng Xiaopeng. However, I also point out some possible issues with this theory, namely the conflicting interests of capitalism and the environment within the context of Daoism.
The argument in favour of anarchical individualism is predicated firstly on an etymological pretext. The Ancient Greek root behind anarchy comes from ‘an arkei’[1], which translates to no power. The etymology of wuwei reveals something similar. Since ‘wei’’ refers to action while ‘wu’ refers to ‘lack of’, Ames makes the argument that this is similar to the etymology of anarchy.[2] Subsequently, Chapter 75 of Laozi’s Daodejing contrasts wuwei with youwei, which means ‘to do many things”. In this chapter, Laozi deplores rulers who engage in youwei and in fact says that it difficult for the ruler to rule.[3] Throughout the texts, you can find examples which praise this point of view, mainly revolving around the ruler ignoring his own personal inclinations in favour of the beliefs of his people. Therefore, the argument could be made from these conceptual texts that Daoism seems to espouse a government that primarily serves the interests of its people and allows its citizens to live freely. The issue with some of this textual evidence is that it is often selective with its quotation of the Daodejing. For example, Laozi also states that ‘ruling a big country is like cooking a small fish.’[4] In many ways this is contrary to the anarchist ideas many of these theorists would espouse but is similarly a central theme in Daoist texts. Many of the ideas that espouse Daoism as an anarchist text do so through a Western lens and fail to see that Chinese philosophy does not see the cultivation of the self in opposition to state power.[5]
Elite Daoist leadership has been common throughout Chinese history. The Chinese conceive the idea of personhood differently than Western anarchists and see it as something that exists within a larger cosmological contrast[6]. On the other hand, Western anarchists view the self as something in direct contrast to the collective will. In Daoism, collective will and individual liberty are not in tension but in fact, complement each other.[7] This line of thinking would apply to Daoist conceptions of the state as well. While Daoism does focus on the ziran and the importance of self-cultivation, it does not espouse a society that is distrustful of state power. At most, one could say that the citizens and the state should be one and the same and that the ruler should not have to compel its citizens by virtue of his leadership.
This Western-influenced anarchist belief is also reinforced by a false reading of historical contexts. Namely, most historians point to the preponderance of Huang-Lao Daoist thought in the aftermath of a brutal and oppressive Qin dynasty that sought to use legalist philosophy to rule with an iron fist. In its aftermath, one may say that it is possible that the Qin dynasty had led to a strong distrust of authority resulting in an individualistic Han dynastical era. Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate given the fact that while the peasantry could self-cultivate their land without stringent tax restrictions, there was still an organized state system that emphasized cooperation. Self-cultivation was practiced as something that is part and parcel with the success of the wider state. Sima Qian, the primary historian of the Han dynastical era, appeared to espouse a system of governance like post-1978 China, wherein a laissez-faire economic system was the best way to allow the citizens to cooperate with the state.[8] In other words, the state must allow its citizens to self-cultivate themselves and their communities with minimal state intervention to optimize both the trust of its citizens and the subsequent success of the nation state. In Daoist terms:
為無為 … 無為而無不為
“To the point that one does everything non-coercively, one does things non-coercively and nothing gets undone” [9]
This focuses the discussion of Daoism around the ideas of individualism in the realm of economics. As Wang and Cheng indicate, Laozi disparages any interference of governments in the market because market competition acts as the mechanism of production.[10] They base this on chapter 2 of the Laozi, which emphasizes the principle of non-interference in state governance. Within this context, one can view the reforms in Deng Xiaopeng’s post-1978 China as a return to Daoist ideology. In fact, the specific nature of the transition China has undergone can be compared to Daoism in both its structure and the way it occurred. It is a very naturalistic approach to governing a population. Deng’s belief that ‘to get rich is glorious’ seemed to propagate the capitalist system that would follow and set China on the path it leads to this day. The comparisons with Daoism are based on the idea that Daoism is a naturalistic philosophy, rather than profoundly idealist or utopian as was Maoism. According to Laozi, nature is dynamic and cannot be finitely fixed or set.[11] This contradicts the historical materialism one had seen in the first few decades of post-1949 China and set forth a belief that to control nature leads to failure. In political terms, it would be incorrect to control the natural ziran of self-cultivating nature of the human experience that seeks to protect the individual self.
The belief that Daoism finds allies in Deng-style governance seems to resonate more than those who believe it to be anarchical. The Dao is often confused with what is natural by virtue of its imagery of the ‘easy flowing stream’ and its characterization as ‘indefinite and vague’. Consequently, people view wuwei through a similar light that advocates letting nature run its course. However, Laozi does not necessarily advocate doing nothing, but as Li indicates, Laozi strongly advocates acting in accordance with the Dao.[12] Therefore, wuwei advocates action that does not violate the Dao. While this is somewhat vague, one can politically contextualize this to refer to Deng’s hexie shehui or ‘social harmony’.
“Things that are hard and rigid are the companions of death, things that are subtle and soft are the companions of life” [13]
In this quote Laozi espouses a subtle approach to societal change, which was Deng’s philosophy on how to help China transition from its Maoist past. This policy of economic gradualism can be contrasted with the legalist approach taken in the aftermath of the USSR. While Deng sought to slowly move China into the wider free-market system without disrupting the social order, the post-USSR state sought to engage in an approach of ‘economic shock therapy’.[14] In other words, a gradual approach to transition under Deng seemed to be more in tune with the Daoist proposition that one must only act under the pretext that the Dao, or social harmony is protected. While I recognize that this is only one way to contextualize the Dao, it does paint an interesting picture of Daoist influences on modern China.
However, even Daoism as an expression of capitalist individualism is not an inscrutable theory. Zhuangzi often espouses the idea that a proper follower of the Dao will lose himself in pursuit of the Dao.[15] In other words, this is a contradiction to the laissez-faire economics of capitalist philosophy that believes ‘to get rich is glorious’. The apparent contradiction in Daoist belief between self-cultivation and the pursuit of the Dao also manifests in different political ideologies. If one believes in the divine right of a ruler, would it not follow that the ruler’s subject would entrust the ruler to act in accordance with the Dao? Subsequently, the subject would then forgo his individual self-cultivation in favour of the pursuit of the Dao, which in the political sphere would involve forgoing individual freedom.[16] Our identities and our capitalist pursuits in the marketplace are based on a sense of self that has free will and self-determination. If we do not have a sense of self, and thus have no ideals of self-determination, then it might follow that we also have no profound right to govern as we so wish to. Ultimately, Daoism also does propagate against striving for anything, which is a slight issue when it is compared with capitalism.
A subsequent thought that stands as an issue when thinking of Deng’s economic capitalism in accordance with Daoism is the subsequent environmental degradation that has been paramount across the Chinese economy. Daoist imagery often has its basis in streams, forests, and rivers that have been ravaged by the capitalist economic machine. Market capitalism is thought to put human ambition above the natural elements, which is not something Daoist thinkers would be inclined to support. To go along with the theme above, the state must act while simultaneously not violating the Dao. Oftentimes, it has been reported that the Chinese state model has been complicit in environmental degradation in order to maximize the success of state-owned enterprises in the free market. If the Dao is natural, then should one not maintain that the state should act against a collective human ambition that messes with the natural order of the environment? The ambition-driven individualist often finds himself at odds with the natural order of the Dao. In many ways, nefarious activities have given rise to a disruption in the natural order, leading to ecological calamities such as the melting of the polar ice caps and mass floods on a global scale. Considering Daoism warned against striving ambition when it contradicts the Dao, it appears as though it also warned against Deng’s economic model that led to these environmental outcomes.
Ultimately however, I still maintain that Daoism would advocate for a laissez-faire national economic system, if not a strong culture of economic competition. Even if the ambitions of capitalist young men lead to an unhealthy life of unbridled ambition that is not sanctioned by Daoist thought, I still maintain that Daoists would limit the power of the state to curb the individual liberty of its citizens. Ultimately, Deng’s vision is influenced by Daoist thinkers, even if the methodology and subsequent results indicate otherwise.
Pranav Dayanand is a Canadian student and soon-to-be-graduate from the University of Toronto, majoring in Political Science and minoring in both Philosophy and Contemporary Asian Studies.
Barbalet, Jack. “Market Relations as Wuwei: Daoist Concepts in Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Market Economy.” Asian Studies Review 35, no. 3 (August 17, 2011): 335–54.
Feldt, Alex. “Governing Through the Dao: A Non-Anarchistic Interpretation of the Laozi.” Dao 9, no. 3 (July 4, 2010): 323–37.
Knightly, Nickolas. “The Paradox of Wuwei? Yes (and No).” Asian Philosophy 23, no. 2 (April 3, 2013): 115–36.
Li, Zhong Yan. “Exploring Laozi’s thoughts on economic management.” Journal of Hunan Business College 7, no. 5 (2000)
Stamatov, Aleksander. “The Laozi and Anarchism.” Asian Philosophy 24, no. 3 (2014): 260-27
Wang, Hui Zheng and Cheng, Rong. 2007. “Laozi’s theory of economics in the contemporary world.” Modern Enterprise Education, 2, no. 2 (2007)
[1] Aleksander Stamatov, “The Laozi and Anarchism”, 261
[2] Ibid, 261
[3] Aleksander Stamatov, “The Laozi and Anarchism”, 266
[4] Ibid, 267
[5] Alex Feldt “Governing Through the Dao: A Non-Anarchistic Interpretation of the Laozi” ,326-327
[6] ibid
[7] Ibid, 330
[8] Jack, Barbalet, “Market Relations as Wuwei: Daoist Concepts in Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Market Economy”, 336-37
[9] Ames and Hall, “DaodeJing”, 151
[10] Wang, Hui Zheng and Cheng, Rong. 2007. “Laozi’s theory of economics in the contemporary world”,
[11] Jack, Barbalet, “Market Relations as Wuwei: Daoist Concepts in Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Market Economy”, 342-43
[12] Zhong Yan, Li. “Exploring Laozi’s thoughts on economic management.”, 4
[13] Ames and Hall, “Daodejing”, 195
[14] Jack, Barbalet, “Market Relations as Wuwei: Daoist Concepts in Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Market Economy”, 345-46
[15]Nickolas Knightly, “The Paradox of Wuwei? Yes (and No)”,118-119
[16] Alex Feldt “Governing Through the Dao: A Non-Anarchistic Interpretation of the Laozi” ,329
Leave a Reply