‘THE ART OF RULERSHIP’ CHAPTER OF THE HUAI NAN TZU: A PRACTICABLE TAOISM

IV. SUMMARY In conclusion, it is possible to identify and articulate important similarities and difference that exist between the earlier Han Fei Tzu notion of yung-chung and the Huai Nan Tzu's development of this concept: 1). Both interpretations are based on a rejection of the efficacy of individual talents and abilities in favor of an orchestration of the collective contribution of the society as a whole. 2). Whereas in Han Fei Tzu the nature and content of each individual's contribution is determined externally and is carefully superintended to promote the interests of the ruler, in the Huai Nan Tzu this contribution is synonymous with the spontaneous expression of each particular nature in its dialogue with the organic whole, 3). Both interpretations reject a reliance upon the promotion of ‘superior’ men where ‘superior’ connotes a universally applicable code of normative values. Whereas in Han Fei Tzu an individual could conceivably qualify as ‘superior’ through strict adherence to the prescribed obligations of his office (i.e. hsing-ming) and on the basis of this be entitled to advancement in the system, in ‘The Art of Rulership’ the individual participates in the political life of the state on the basis of his aptitude, interests, and abilities. 4). Where the Han Fei Tzu delineates the concept of yung-chung to provide the ruler with a technique that can be used effectively to exploit what is ieeded of the collective strength and intelligence of the people as as a means to impose control on their enegies and channel their efforts to an end determined by his own personal interests, ‘The Art of Rulership’ chapter seeks to exploit the people's natural wealth of talent and ability to the fullest possible extent as an end in itself. In the Han Fei Tzu, the education and development of the people as an end in itself is repeatedly discouraged as consituting a thrpat to the authority of the ruler. Division of labor is encouraged not because of a recognition and appreciation of varied talents, but rather because division among subordinates is a necessary element in the exercise of control. While ‘The Art of Rulership’ theorist would suggest that the strongest state is one iri which each individual is allowed to achieve his own realization and to make his own unique contribution to the whole, the Han Fei Tzu follows the Shang-chiin shu in asserthg that a strong state is one in whch the people are made weak. This essential weakness of the people is necessary to permit the ruler to harness them and regulatc their activities by a system of external constraints. This difference between the Han Fei Tzu and ‘The Art of Rulership’ stems from the strong Legalist conviction that a great tension exists between private and state interests28 and the opporite and equally strong conviction in ‘The Art of Rulership’ that individual and social fulfiment are coextensive. Where the entire government apparatus in Legalist thought is constructed to serve the interests of the ruler, ‘The Art of Rulership’ rejecting the notion that there is a basic antagonism between the benefit of the people and the interests of the state, insists that the means of serving the ruler and he ruled is one and the same. In the political theory of this ‘The Art of Rulership’ chapter, and especially in the wedding of yung-chung and ke re ch'i yi, there is a fundamental conviction that if each particular is allowed to follow the natural course of its development through to fulfilment, the result will be an integrated natural order. On a political level, this means that the ruler allocates his offices in such a manner as to take full advantage of individual talents while making every effort to avoid making demands on his subordinates that will distort their natural inclinations in the expectation that this attitude will result in a politically stable society with a great and abiding strength rooted in the particular and unique strength of each individual. It would seem that the similarities which the Han Fei Tzu and ‘The Art of Rulership’ chapter of the Huai Nan Tzu share with respect to this principle of yung-chung are superficial while their differences are of the most essential nature. In the Han Fei Tzu, the ruler governs and controls the people, whereas in ‘The Art of Rulership’ the people hold sway over the ruler to the extent that they have a detirmining effect on the direction and character of his administration. ‘Ther Art of Rulership’ ruler is not free to use the people as he likes, but rather must accommodate the government to the natural expression of the people and must pursue conformity between his political organization and the natural proclivities of the people. In this most essential difference lies the principle of control over the power of the sovereign which pervades this entire chapter and which is readily identifiable in its interpretation of the other Legalist concepts. Hsiao Kung-chum identifies this same effort to limit the control excercised by the ruler as a central theme in the Lu-shih ch ‘un-ch’iu: His (LIU Pu-wei's) greatest contribution would appear to be his proposals for all kinds of methods by which to restrict the ruler, preventing him from indulging his whims and passions.29 In order to accomplish the end of setting limits on the powers of the ruler, Liu Pu-wei invokes theories based on the Confucian notions of kingly rule and the ultimate importance of the people. ‘The Art of Rulership’, on the other hand, reflects its historical context and the ascendancy of Taoist ideals in proffering a fundamentally Taoist solution to this same problem of delimiting the powers of the ruler. A second interesting parallel between the political phdosophies propounded in ‘The Art of Rulership’ and the Lu-shih ch ‘un-ch’iu related to this effort to contain the powers of the ruler is that both texts are devoted to presenting an alternative to Legalist totalitarianism. The Lu-shih ch'un-ch'iu re-examines the Confucian tradition in search, of this alternative and ultimately establishes the principles of ‘valuing life’ and seeking ‘the whole life’, seeing political organization as a necessary condition for ensuring the good life for the individual.30‘The Art of Rulership’, on the other hand, constructs its alternative to Legalism on the basis of Taoist precepts. My understanding of this concept of yung-chung and the entire ‘The Art of Rulership’ chapter is that it has been developed with the express intention of providing a political structure and organization conducive to the development and advancement of Taoist principles at a practical political and social level. It would seem that the author of this chapter, aware of the pragmatic inadequacy of earlier Taoist political theory, attempts to concede the minimal amount of political structure necessary to guarantee the maximum degree of individual freedom. I would characterize the political theory outlined in ‘The Art of Rulership’ chapter as an attempt at a ‘practicable Taoism’ -a somewhat tamed Taoism which is willing to trade certain claims to unconstrained freedom for a functional practicability.