This is the first in a series of posts summarising and discussing “Chinese History Revisited” (中國文明的反思; transliterated, “Reflections on Chinese Civilisation”), written by Mainland journalist Xiao Jiansheng (萧建生). Previous attempts to publish the book in the Mainland were unsuccessful; the book has recently been published in its entirety in Hong Kong.

Update: Click on the tag “Chinese History Revisited” to see the entire series.

Preface

The author begins by criticising the study of history in China as remaining mired in the old (Marxist) terminology and analysis of class struggle, revolutionaries and reactionaries, even after decades of economic reform. Xiao levels the charge that the Chinese have been unwilling to reflect on their history, and are therefore unable to identify which lessons should properly be learnt from Chinese history, or to distinguish between desirable and undesirable traits in Chinese civilisation.

Xiao’s stated project is to use the prisms of what he calls “modern civilisation” (democracy, the rule of law, liberty and human rights) to re-examine Chinese history. He justifies the use of these standards by advancing the familiar argument, most recently bolstered by Zhao Ziyang’s Prisoner of the State (趙紫陽: 改革歷程), that the Western political ideals of liberal democracy are, as yet, the best means devised to secure social equality, preserve civil liberties and stamp out abuse of State power and corruption. In light of the long history of authoritarianism (and the previous disastrous attempt at establishing a Republic of China), Xiao argues that the responsibility of social scientists in China should be to implement democratic reforms while maintaining social stability - and that this must be done in light of the “right” lessons from China’s history.

Xiao summarises his project as asking the following questions:

• Why did Chinese Antiquity only give rise to monolithic autocracies, rather than to democratic pluralistic societies (多元化文明), as happened in Greece and Rome?
• How did monolitic autocracy arise in China, and how did it develop?
• How did Chinese civilisation reach such heights of sophistication during the Tang (唐) and Song (宋) Dynasties?
• Why were constitutional polities able to come into being in the West?
• How did Europe transition from a Mediaeval monolithic system to pluralism?
• Why hasn’t Chinese civilisation changed from a monolithic civilisation to one of pluralism? Why have previous attempts failed?

Chapter 1

Xiao begins his historical enquiry with an examination of Chinese creation mythology, on the premise that myths and legends (from the epics of Homer to Biblical narratives) have some factual foundation.

The author begins by examining the creation story of Pan Gu (盤古), said to have created the heavens and the Earth, and Nu Wa (女媧), said to have created mankind and repaired the heavens. Xiao then attempts to draw links between these creation stories and the creation account in Genesis, the Tower of Babel and Big Bang Theory.

Palmerston: This is the weakest part of the entire chapter. The links Xiao attempts to draw are specious at best, and Xiao’s digression into the Evolution/Creationism “debate” merely shows how out of his depth he is. Xiao is much better as a historian than as a biologist or scientific theorist.

Xiao proceeds to argue that Pan Gu and Nu Wa were originally treated as deities, and that their subsequent treatment as saints (聖人; translit: “holy men”) gave rise to an anthropocentric (rather than a deity-centric) culture and that this resulted in the denial of God’s existence and the deification of Man, contrasting this with the Biblical account of original sin and the resultant distrust of human nature in the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. Xiao equates this distrust in human goodness with the existence of checks and balances in Western liberal democracy.

Palmerston: This is a suggestion which is on marginally firmer ground. While it is true that Western democracy is, at heart, based on distrust of human nature, it is not altogether clear that this distrust still rests on Biblical foundations.

Xiao moves on to attack the iconography of the dragon, starting with the popular expression “dragons’ descendants” (龍的傳人; a vernacular reference to the Chinese people). In Xiao’s analysis, the dragon was historically treated as a strictly mythical beast until the Qin (秦) Dynasty. Myths about dragons proliferated in the Han (漢) Dynasty, but dragons continued to be viewed as vicious creatures and harbingers of doom, particular in the Shiji (史記), the historical accounts of Sima Qian (司馬遷). The author argues that the usurpation of the dragon as the Imperial insignia is particularly apt, in light of the dragon’s connotations of greed and violence - and that the mythology of descent from dragons is inconsistent with the account of Nu Wa as creator-deity.

This is followed by an examination of the purported erosion of social values and centralisation of power which occurs during the mythical period of the Three Soversigns and Five Emperors. During the Three Sovereigns period a transition occurs from the Datong Society (大同; “Great Unity”), which Xiao associates with primitive hunter-gatherer societies with elected leaders, to the Xiaokang Society (小康; a society of modest means), which Xiao considers to be an analogue of an agricultural, tribal society. (Both Datong and Xiaokang are described by Confucius in the Book of Rites (禮記).) Over the course of the Five Emperors period, according to Xiao, there is a steady shift from a federation of tribes to a more centralised system, culminating with the emergence of absolutist government in the Xia (夏) dynasty. Xiao considers this shift to be linked to the belief that the Emperors were morally perfect sage-kings.

Palmerston: The conclaves of tribal leaders Xiao describes bear a hint of resemblance to the Afghan loya jirga, but Xiao does not attempt to draw this comparison. Nor does Xiao compare the sage-kings of the Five Emperors period with the philosopher-kings of Plato’s Republic - a comparison which would be particularly compelling, given the author’s stated objective of looking at Chinese history through a Western prism.

The emergence of the Datong and of a system where emperors were elected and subjected to checks and balances from conclaves of tribal leaders did not, however, lead to an ancient Chinese Republic, but instead gave way to monarchical absolutism. Xiao explains this with reference to the Jingwei (精衛) myth (about a princess who drowned while trying to cross what is now known as the Pacific Ocean), a veiled allusion to the futility of ancient Chinese maritime exploration. As a result, Xiao argues, ancient Chinese society remained predominantly agricultural, with the only trade being costly and time-consuming overland trade. The very nature of agriculture (as a labour-intensive activity which did not encourage risk-taking) favoured peace and stability over freedom and debate and allowed power to be consolidated in hereditary hegemons. In addition, the absence of a wealthy mercantile class and the meagre gains from farming meant that conquest, rather than trade, was the only viable means of wealth acquisition. Xiao compares this set of circumstances to those faced by Western and Middle Eastern civilisations. Whereas Mediterranean geography positively demanded trade amongst the Grecian city-states and resulted in the birth of Athenian democracy (and similar coastal trade allowed the emergence of the Roman Republic), other ancient civilisations clustered around inland cities (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India) did not develop into democracies.

Palmerston: It will be evident from the above summary that Xiao is much better at being a historian than he is at being an evolutionary biologist or a comparative religious scholar. While he makes some interesting points about the agrarian nature of ancient Chinese civilisation resulting in authoritarianism, these are not explored in sufficient detail or backed up with much in the way of textual evidence. In fairness, part of this is no doubt due to the paucity of materials relating to Chinese mythology and Chinese antiquity - but the author would have been better served had he drawn out the comparison with Aegean civilisation rather than advancing dubious propositions about Intelligent Design. ?