The Meaning of “Renewing the People”
The term renewing the people does not mean that our people must give up entirely what is old in order to follow others. There are two meanings of renewing. One is to improve what is original in the people and so renew it; the other is to adopt what is originally lacking in the people and so make a new people. Without both of these, there will be no success. . . .
When a nation can stand up in the world its citizens must have a unique character. From morality and laws to customs, habits, literature, and the arts, these all possess a certain unique spirit. Then the ancestors pass them down and their descendants receive them. The group becomes unified and a nation is formed. This is truly the wellspring of nationalism. Our people have been established as a nation on the Asian continent for several thousand years, and we must have some special characteristics that are grand, noble, and perfect, and distinctly different from those of other races. We should preserve these characteristics and not let them be lost. What is called preserving, however, is not simply to let them exist and grow by themselves and then blithely say, “I am preserving them, I am preserving them.” It is like a tree: unless some new buds come out every year, its withering away may soon be expected. Or like a well: unless there is always some new spring bubbling, its exhaustion is not far away. [12: 40a]
Is it enough merely to develop what we already have? No, it is not. The world of today is not the world of yesterday. In ancient times, we Chinese were people of villages instead of citizens. This is not because we were unable to form a citizenry but due to circumstances. Since China majestically used to be the predominant power in the East, surrounded as we were by small barbarian groups and lacking any contact with other large states, we Chinese generally considered our state to encompass the whole world. All the messages we received, all that influenced our minds, all the instructions of our sages, and all that our ancestors passed down qualified us to be individuals on our own, family members, members of localities and clans, and members of the world. But they did not qualify us to be citizens of a state. Although the qualifications of citizenship are not necessarily much superior to these other characteristics, in an age of struggle among nations for the survival of the fittest while the weak perish, if the qualities of citizens are wanting, then the nation cannot stand up independently between Heaven and earth.
If we wish to make our nation strong, we must investigate extensively the methods followed by other nations in becoming independent. We should select their superior points and appropriate them to make up for our own shortcomings. Now with regard to politics, academic learning, and technology, our critics know how to take the superior points of others to make up for our own weakness; but they do not know that the people’s virtue, the people’s wisdom, and the people’s vitality are the great basis of politics, academic learning, and techniques. If they do not take the former but adopt the latter, neglect the roots but tend the branches, it will be no different from seeing the luxuriant growth of another tree and wishing to graft its branches onto our withered trunk, or seeing the bubbling flow of another well and wishing to draw its water to fill our dry well. Thus, how to adopt and make up for what we originally lacked so that our people may be renewed should be deeply and carefully considered. [12: 40b]
All phenomena in the world are governed by no more than two principles: the conservative and the progressive. Those who are applying these two principles are inclined either to the one or to the other. Sometimes the two arise simultaneously and conflict with each other; sometimes the two exist simultaneously and compromise with each other. No one can exist if he is inclined only to one. Where there is conflict, there must be compromise. Conflict is the forerunner of compromise.
Those who excel at making compromises become a great people, such as the Anglo-Saxons, who, in a manner of speaking, make their way with one foot on the ground and one foot going forward, or who hold fast to things with one hand and pick up things with another. Thus, what I mean by “renewing the people” does not refer to those who are infatuated with Western ways and, in order to keep company with others, throw away our morals, learning, and customs of several thousand years’ standing. Nor does it refer to those who stick to old paper and say that merely embracing the morals, learning, and customs of these thousands of years will be sufficient to enable us to stand upon the great earth. [12: 41a]
On Public Morality
The main deficiency in our citizens is their lack of public morality. “Public morality” simply refers to that which allows people to form groups and nations. Humans are the species of animal who can best establish themselves through this morality (as the Western philosopher Aristotle noted). . . .
Among our people there is not one who looks on national affairs as if they were his own affairs. The significance of public morality has not dawned on us. Examining into it, however, we realize that the original basis for morality lies in its serving the interests of the group. As groups differ in their degree of barbarism or civilization, so do their appropriate morals vary. All of them, however, aim at consolidating, improving, and developing the group. . . . In ancient times some barbarians considered it moral to practice sharing of women or to treat slaves as if they were not human beings. And modern philosophers do not call it immoral because under the particular situation at the time that was the proper thing to do in the interests of the group. Thus morality is founded on the interests of the group. If it is against this principle, even the perfect good can become an accursed evil. Public morality is therefore the basis of all morals. What is beneficial to the group is good; what is detrimental to the interests of the group is bad. This principle applies to all places and to all ages.
As to the external features of morality, they vary according to the degree of progress in each group. As groups differ in barbarism or civilization, so do their public interests and their morals. Morality cannot remain absolutely unchanged. It is not something that could be put into a fixed formula by the ancients several thousand years ago, to be followed by all generations to come. Hence, we who live in the present group should observe the main trends of the world, study what will suit our nation, and create a new morality in order to solidify, benefit, and develop our group. We should not impose upon ourselves a limit and refrain from going into what our sages had not prescribed. Search for public morality and there will appear a new morality, there will appear “a people renewed.” [12: 47a–b]
On Progress
Generally, those who talk about a “renewal” may be divided into two groups. The lower group consists of those who pick up others’ trite expressions and assume a bold look in order to climb up the official hierarchy. Their Western learning is stale stuff, their diplomacy relies on bribes, and their travels are moving in the dark. These people, of course, are not worth mentioning. The higher group consists of those who are worried about the situation and try hard to develop the nation and to promote well-being. But when asked about their methods, they would begin with diplomacy, training of troops, purchase of arms, and manufacture of instruments; then they would proceed to commerce, mining, and railways; and finally they would come, as they did recently, to officers’ training, police, and education. Are these not the most important and necessary things for modern civilized nations? Yes. But can we attain the level of modern civilization and place our nation in an invincible position by adopting a little of this and that, or taking a small step now and then? I know we cannot. [13: 32b]
Let me illustrate this by commerce. Economic competition is one of the big problems of the world today. It is the method whereby the powers attempt to conquer us. It is also the method whereby we should fight for our existence. The importance of improving our foreign trade has been recognized by all. But in order to promote foreign trade, it is necessary to protect the rights of our domestic trade and industry, and in order to protect these rights, it is necessary to issue a set of commercial laws. Commercial laws, however, cannot stand by themselves, and so it is necess
ary to complement them with other laws. A law that is not carried out is tantamount to no law; it is therefore necessary to define the powers of the judiciary. Bad legislation is worse than no legislation, and so it is necessary to decide where the legislative power should belong. If those who violate the law are not punished, laws will become void as soon as they are proclaimed; therefore, the duties of the judiciary must be defined. When all these are carried to the logical conclusion, it will be seen that foreign trade cannot be promoted without a constitution, a parliament, and a responsible government. Those who talk about foreign trade today blithely say, “I am promoting it, I am promoting it,” and nothing more. I do not know how they are going to promote it. The above is one illustration, but it is true with all other cases. Thus I know why the so-called new methods nowadays are ineffectual. Why? Because without destruction there can be no construction. . . . What, then, is the way to effect our salvation and to achieve progress? The answer is that we must shatter at a blow the despotic and confused governmental system of some thousands of years; we must sweep away the corrupt and sycophantic learning of these thousands of years. [13: 33a–b]
[Xinmin shuo, in Yinbing shi wenji 12: 36b, 40a–b, 41a, 47a–b; 13: 32b–33b—CT]
THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RIGHTS
Liang Qichao considered that the “new citizenry” possessed rights both individually and collectively. The term here translated as “rights” is quanli, a more literal rendering of which would be “power and profit.” The earliest use of the compound quan-li occurs in the Confucian classic Xunzi, where we read that when one has perfected one’s learning and self-cultivation, “quan-li cannot move one [to do wrong]” (Xunzi Index, 3/1/49). In other words, Xunzi considered quan-li to be something that we should not allow to influence us. Liang’s essay is representative of a movement toward reinterpreting and reevaluating quanli, propelled both by internal Confucian developments and by Western writings (translated into Chinese terms by the Japanese) that emphasized rights as empowerment.
All people have responsibilities toward others that they ought to fulfill, and all people have responsibilities to themselves that they ought to fulfill. Not fulfilling one’s responsibility to others is indirectly to harm the group, while not fulfilling one’s responsibility to oneself is directly to harm the group. How is this? Not fulfilling one’s responsibilities to others is like killing another; not fulfilling one’s responsibilities to oneself is like killing oneself. If someone kills himself, then the group is decreased by one person. If there were a group all of whose members killed themselves, that would mean no less than the entire group’s suicide.
What are one’s responsibilities to oneself? In giving birth to things, Heaven endowed them with innate abilities to defend and preserve themselves; all living things are examples of this. The reason why humans are superior to the other myriad things is that they have not only a “physical” existence but also a “metaphysical” one. There is more than one requirement for metaphysical existence, but the most important of them is rights.
Thus animals have no responsibilities toward themselves other than preserving their lives, while in order for those who are called “human” to completely fulfill our self-responsibilities, we must preserve both our lives and our rights, which rely on one another. If we do not do this, we will immediately lose our qualifications to be human and will stand in the same position as animals. Thus all laws of Rome that saw slaves as equivalent to animals were, according to logical theory, perfectly correct. (If we used a logical syllogism to make the reasoning explicit, it would look like this: (1) those without rights are animals; (2) slaves have no rights; (3) therefore, slaves are animals.)
Thus while in a “physical” suicide, only one person is killed, in the case of a “metaphysical” suicide, a whole society is turned into animals. Furthermore, their descendants will reproduce endlessly. This is why I say that not fulfilling one’s responsibility to oneself is to directly harm the group. Alas! I really do not understand why so many of my fellow Chinese are willing to kill themselves!
Where do rights originate? Rights originate in strength. Lions and tigers always have first-class, absolute rights with respect to the myriad animals, as do chieftains and kings with respect to the common people, aristocrats with respect to commoners, men with respect to women, large groups with respect to small, and strong nations with respect to weak ones. This is not due to the violent evil of the lions, tigers, chieftains, and so on. It is Heaven’s nature that all humans desire to extend their own rights and never be satisfied with what they have attained. Thus it is the nature of rights that someone must first give them up before someone else can snatch them away.
For a human to be committed to strengthening himself through preserving his rights is an unparalleled method for firmly establishing and improving his group. In ancient Greece there were those who made offerings to the god of justice. The statue of this god held a scale in its left hand and a sword in its right. The scale was for weighing rights, and the sword was for protecting the practice of rights. To have a sword but no scale would be mean and wicked, but to have a scale without a sword is to make “rights” empty talk and ultimately futile. . . .
If considering only humane government will not do, it goes without saying that cruel government is still worse. In general, that humans possess rights consciousness is due to innate good knowing and good ability. But why is it that there are great inequalities—some are strong while others are weak, some dormant while others disappear? Such differences always follow the history of a nation and the gradual influence of political circumstances. Mencius said it before me: “It is not that there were never sprouts [on the mountainside], but cattle and sheep continuously graze there, so that it becomes barren.” If one observes the histories of nations that have been destroyed—whether Eastern or Western, ancient or contemporary—one sees that in the beginning, there has always been some resistance against tyrannical rule to seek liberty. But as the government seeks repeatedly to eradicate opposition, the resistance gets steadily weaker, more despondent, and melts away until eventually the rigorous, intoxicating consciousness of rights comes increasingly under control and is increasingly diluted, to the point that any hope of its restoration is lost and the people come to accept repression. As the situation continuously worsens over the decades and centuries, rights consciousness completely disappears. . . .
The citizenry is an assemblage of individual persons. The rights of the state are composed of the rights of individuals. Therefore, the thoughts, feelings, and actions of a citizenry will never be obtainable without the thoughts, feelings, and actions of each individual member. That the people is strong means that the state is strong; that the people is weak means that the state is weak; that the people is rich means that the state is rich; that the people is poor means that the state is poor; that the people possesses rights means that the state possesses rights; and that the people is without shame means that the state is without shame. Is it rational to hope to establish the nation on the basis of the three characters “nation without shame”? Is it rational? . . .
The state is like a tree, and the consciousness of rights is like its roots. If the roots are destroyed, the tree will wither and die no matter how strong its trunk or vigorous its leaves. If fierce winds and rains come, it will be smashed all the sooner. Or else the scorching heat of a drought will soon cause it to completely decay away. When a citizenry that lacks rights consciousness is confronted with foreign pressures, it is like a withered tree in a storm. Or if there are no foreign pressures, such a citizenry is like the tree in a drought. I see that of all the millions of inhabitants of the earth, except for the black savages of India, Africa, and Southeast Asia, no one has a weaker sense of rights than do we Chinese.
[Xinmin shuo, ch. 8, pp. 31–32, 38–39—PZ]
THE CONCEPT OF THE NATION
Liang Qichao’s concept of a “new citizenry” and “public morality” was directly correlated to his new conviction co
ncerning the nation as the irreducible core of social organization and civilized life. In contrast to his former mentor Kang Youwei, whose universalistic, cosmopolitan ideal would subsume all human loyalties in the “Grand Commonality,” Liang argued the need for national loyalty. Like Zhang Binglin and Sun Yat-sen, he believed that the Chinese lacked a sense of nationalism; traditional Chinese loyalties had been more to self, family, and local community. This left China without the solidarity and cohesion needed to survive in the struggle among nations. A conscious effort was therefore needed to develop a sense of nationhood and to inculcate national loyalty among the people.
Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2 Page 44