Angus
C. Graham’s book, Disputers of the Tao:
Philosophical Argument in Ancient China, portrays Mohism as a radical
reaction of lower status individuals to the growing social instability of
China. According to Graham, an artisan named Mo (later called Mo-Tzu, Tzu being
the “master” honorific) developed Mohism as a school of thought advocating
strict utilitarianism. He goes on to say that the end of Mohism went hand in
hand with the end of powerful artisan influence in cities. While Graham does
well at explaining Mo-Tzu’s three tests of argument and the different sects of
Mohism, he mistakenly attributes the Mohist “benefit” principle as originating
from status differences. This view of Mohism as a reactionary force of artisans
against the status quo taints the rest of his analysis. Mohism was not a school
of thought that arose from the lower stratum – it was a school of thought that
originated from Confucianism.
First
we will start off with what Graham got right. He paints three different sects
of Mohism, which he labels as purist, compromising, and reactionary.[1]
The purists are the ones closest to the original doctrine of Mo-Tzu. The other
two, compromising and reactionary, deviate from the purist stance, with
reactionary being most distant. It is not difficult to imagine such a schism as
history provides us with previous examples of religious schisms from the Sunni
and Shia of Islam to the Protestant and Catholic of Christianity. A school of
thought such as Mohism would be more inclined to fracturing owing to the rigid
nature of its doctrine.
Graham’s
next important insight comes when he refers to Mohism’s three tests of argument
as, “the Three Gnomons.”[2]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a gnomon as, “A pillar, rod, or other
object which serves to indicate the time of day by casting its shadow upon a
marked surface; esp. the pin or triangular plate used for this purpose in an
ordinary sun-dial.”[3] Mohists believed that judging
the morality of actions could be done with precise calculations, making their ideals
irrefutable. Thus, Graham’s translation of the three tests to “the Three
Gnomons” connects the measurement of time to the Mohist desire for exact measures
of mortality. The Three Gnomons of morality are the assertion of origin,
validation of the senses, and demonstration of utility.[4] Graham
notes that the first and third gnomons are applied more often. In contrast, the
validation of the senses, the second gnomon, is only employed on the sections
dealing with the spiritual. From afar this appears as a weak point in the
Mohist doctrine. Graham explains this peculiarity as an attachment of the lower
stratum to rewarding and punishing divinities of “folk religion.”[5] In
actuality, Mohists kept spiritual entities in their writings because both
ghosts and heaven played important roles in Mohism, as we shall see later on.
Graham
incorrectly introduces Mo-Tzu as an artisan of humble birth and uses this false
image as a foundation for his later discussions. He builds his case by pointing
to the dry repetitive prose of early Mohist writings as evidence of the
writer’s artisan origins.[6] He
further theorizes that the fall of Mohism was connected to the loss of artisan
influence in cities after the reunification of the Empire.[7] All
of these assumptions about artisan origins are false. Graham fails to account
for the reason behind Mo-Tzu’s familiarity with Confucianism. Burton Watson
comments on Mo-Tzu’s early education in his book, Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsün Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu, stating “he
first studied under the scholars of the Confucian school.”[8] Prior
to starting his own school of thought, Mo-Tzu was originally a follower of Confucianism.
It is unlikely that someone who works with his hands for craftwork would be a
scholar. The more plausible explanation would be that Mo-Tzu was similar to
Confucius, a member of the knight class. Further evidence of Mo-Tzu’s scholarly
background is available through his heavy use of the Book of Odes and the Book of
Documents. He frequently refers to the sage kings and other historical
figures.[9] Therefore,
Mohism was not an artisan, but a scholar.
Mo-Tzu’s
educational background as a former Confucian explains his bitter attack on
Confucius. Nothing makes a more acrid enemy than a former believer. At some
point in time, Mo-Tzu became disillusioned with the teachings of Confucius. The
reason for Mo-Tzu’s rejection of Confucianism can be seen from the values he
criticizes, namely expenditure, music, and fatalism. All these issues stem from
the Confucianism’s vagueness on material prospects of the future. Confucian
teachings valued learning, ancient rites, and music, but provided no guarantees
about achieving success as a statesmen. Instead Confucian ideology shunned
official position and wealth, while advocating for abstract concepts like “the
way,” and “benevolence.”[10] The
vagueness in determining the correct path forward combined with a continuing
deterioration of society during the Spring and Autumn Period must have frustrated
some Confucians, among them Mo-Tzu. These dissents of Confucianism turned to the
concrete idea of “benefit” to inform their actions.[11]
Material benefit, unlike benevolence, is a physical quantity that can be
measured to provide a standard to judge the morality of actions. This readily
available measurement of morality provides a convincing school of thought in
opposition to Confucianism.
The
prose and style of Mohist writings reflects, not artisan origins as claimed by
Graham, but rather scholarly origins as well as a belief in identifying with
one’s superior. The Basic Writings of Mo
Tzu seeks to impart the wisdom of its master in similar fashion to the Analects. Thus, most discussions
throughout the text begin with “Mo-Tzu said.”[12]
Yet the writings of Mo-Tzu differ from the Analects
in the number of participants talking. Unlike in the Analects where Confucius converses with his disciples, Mo-Tzu often
lectures without other speakers. The lack of other speakers reflects the Mohist
belief in respecting one’s superior. There is no room for opposing voices.
Either one follows orders or faces punishment from above.[13]
This inflexible chain of command ties into the belief of an omnipotent and
omniscient heaven.
Graham
attributes Mohist belief in spirits and heaven’s will as a result of their
lower status origin. He maps out the Mohist role of heaven as a personal entity
to “enforce true morality by reward and punishment.”[14] Graham
dismisses this Mohist stance as “less religious.”[15] He
acknowledges the new role that heaven plays in Mohism, but sees the use of a
deity for ensuring justice as a cheapening of religious value. Graham’s
viewpoint is valid. Dragging a supernatural entity into the realm of human
politics does create a blurring of the borders between faith and secular
society. However, the belief for a deity to have physical effects upon society reflects
a sincere desire for more faith. In a way, Mohist conservatism for an
omnipresent deity can be seen as akin to a theocracy. Instead of less
religious, theocratic states are more religious to the extreme, where laws are
dictated by the holy text. In the case of Mohism, a belief in an omnipotent
deity is essential to make sure that the hierarchy of authority runs smoothly. Heaven
gains religious significance by being at the top of society.
The
fall of Mohism was because of the unpopularity of the doctrine’s rigid code and
infighting among the sects. Graham’s artisan theory is no longer tenable as we
have already determined that Mohism originated from a disillusioned Confucian
scholar. A study of the Mohist ideology reveals why this school of thought
could not gain widespread popularity: the ideals are too extreme as a means of
living. There is a rigid command structure that turns to omniscient deities to
enforce a code of ethics and a universal morality calling for everyone to be
treated as family. Stemming from universal morality is a complete rejection of
offensive warfare of any kind, regardless of a valid casus belli. Utilitarian calculation removes music and anything
that “brings no benefit to the common people.”[16] The
removal of life’s excess luxuries leaves just bare necessities for living. Thus,
as stated by the author of a late chapter of Chuang Tzu, “It causes the people to be anxious, to be sorrowful,
and its ways are hard to follow.”[17] In
addition, the teachings of Master Mo became increasingly diluted among the
splintered sects. Purists clung on to the original doctrine, but faced stiff
competition from rivaling “heretical Mohists” that could appeal to a larger
audience by softening or changing policies.[18] The
infighting among the sects weakened them to other schools of thought.
Graham’s faulty vision of Mohism as a school
of thought originating from lower stratum artisans unfortunately ruins his subsequent
in-depth analysis of the writings of Mo-Tzu. The prose he claims as “ponderous,
humourless, repetitive” is an act of dissent from former Confucians to the
wordy writings of Confucianism.[19] The
repetition in the text is used stylistically to “drum certain set phrases into
the mind of the reader.”[20]
The “folk religion” tendencies of believing in the supernatural arise as a
conservative push to reinforce the rigid demands of universal love and
identifying with one’s superior. Ultimately, the fall of Mohism can be
attributed to the unrealistic demands of its tenets, not because of a decline
in artisan power. Graham should have placed a greater emphasis on the principles
of Mohism and its connection to rival schools of thought. Doing so would have allowed
him to flesh out the ideology’s origins and avoid misattributing Mohism to
artisans.
[1] Angus C. Graham, A
Breakdown of the World Order Decreed by Heaven, 51-53.
[2] Ibid., 37.
[3] "gnomon, n.". OED
Online. March 2017. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/79523?redirectedFrom=Gnomon (accessed March 25,
2017).
[4] Burton Watson, Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsün Tzu, and Han
Fei Tzu, 118.
[5] Graham, 47.
[6] Ibid., 34.
[7] Ibid., 34-35.
[8] Watson, 1.
[9] Ibid., 25, 29, 32, 33, 44,
45, 85, 102, 124.
[10] Confucius, The Analects,
Book VI, Chapter 4 and Book IX, Chapter 7.
[11] Watson, 62.
[12] These are just some of the
examples present in the text. Ibid., 18, 22, 34, 39, 44, 52.
[13] Ibid., 34-35.
[14] Graham, 48.
[15] Ibid., 47-48.
[16] Watson, 111.
[17] Ibid., 13.
[18] Graham, 35.
[19] Ibid., 34.
[20] Watson, 15.
No comments:
Post a Comment