Some people say that there has never been a soil for "liberalism" in ancient China, nor an enlightenment movement.
Perhaps not. Among the various schools of thought, there was a person named Yang Zhu who advocated "valuing oneself," "doing things for oneself," and "rebirth." He emphasized the protection of individual rights and the respect for the rights of others. This is similar to Socrates' "rationality and morality" and "individual freedom," while the Western Enlightenment movement followed Epicurus' "social contract theory" on "private and public rights," which came more than 50 years after Yang Zhu. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that Yang Zhu was the first person to advocate for the "sacred and inviolable individual rights."
Historians believe that Yang Zhu's thinking was a personal awakening. Yang Zhu wanted to clarify the boundaries between individuals, collectives, society, and the state. It was precisely because of the blurred boundaries in ancient China that there was ignorance and tragedy of "sacrificing oneself for husband, ruler, and state."
Yang Zhu's "valuing oneself" thinking is similar to the ancient Greek "freedom of reason" and the ancient Roman "independent personality" thinking. They all emphasize individual rights, free will, and independent thinking. In the following two thousand years, "individual liberalism" became the mainstream thought driving the development of Western society. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau followed the ideas of Epicurus and further improved and practiced the "social contract theory," promoting the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and democratic revolutions.
However, the idea of "individual liberalism" was short-lived in China and did not reemerge for more than two thousand years, even during the "golden age of free thought" when the Hundred Schools of Thought contended with each other.
Why did the "freedom" thoughts of the East and the West have such different fates?
The only explanation is that the Confucian and Legalist schools, which tend to conform to authority and power, dominated China's later historical process. The criticism and suppression of Yang Zhu by the various schools, especially the Confucians, was the direct cause.
The Confucianist "collectivism" is the opposite of "individualism," while the Legalist "authoritarianism" is the enemy of "liberalism." The fusion of Confucianism and Legalism, the "centralized authoritarian rule," naturally cannot accommodate the thought of "individual liberalism."
So, while Western society experienced the flourishing of "private property is sacred and inviolable" from the Roman law code to the Renaissance, from religious reform to the Enlightenment, from the Dutch Revolution to the Glorious Revolution in England, and then to the astonishing American independence, China was still spinning in the "authoritarian centralized rule" of the "imperial power."
Authoritarian rule will never regard a person as an "independent personality." In the eyes of authoritarian rulers, a person is merely an object, an animal, a servant, or a slave, at best just a tool of the collective. Therefore, the idea of "individual liberalism" has never had a fertile soil since the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period.
Ironically, Yang Zhu, the originator of such "freethinking," can only be understood through the criticisms of him by the various schools. Starting from Mencius, almost all references to Yang Zhu were made for the purpose of criticism. Yang Zhu was merely a negative example of orthodox Chinese thought.
Whether Yang Zhu had any writings or they have been lost is still a mystery. Perhaps we are more inclined to believe that it was the result of the "burning of books" and "banning of speech" by authoritarian rule. After all, we can infer from the words of Mencius: "The words of Yang Zhu and Mo Di filled the world. If the words of the world did not return to Yang, they would return to Mo." It can be seen that Yang Zhu had many followers and fans during that era of "the Hundred Schools of Thought." How could such "worldly words" not have any writings?
Nevertheless, we can still trace the ideological context of Yang Zhu through the words of Mencius and those who criticized him.
Yang Zhu advocated "valuing oneself" and "rebirth," emphasizing the importance of the "right to existence." He emphasized individual human nature and dignity, that is, "freedom" and "rights." Yang Zhu believed that people are born with desires and should satisfy them moderately, so "people live for themselves." The Confucians criticized Yang Zhu's "valuing oneself" and "rebirth" as "selfish, decadent, and corrupt" because it contradicted Confucius' emphasis on "valuing benevolence" and "valuing the public."
In fact, during the late Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, the princes were in constant conflict, sacrificing their people for personal gain. The talk of "valuing the public" and "valuing benevolence" had become hypocritical.
Yang Zhu, in his frustration with the world, advocated the saying "even if it is just a single hair, I will not trade it for the benefit of the world." The various schools criticized this as "extreme selfishness" and "not giving up even a single hair." Yang Zhu's disciple Meng Sunyang argued against this criticism, saying, "If sacrificing a single hair is equivalent to harming the skin, breaking a bone, or endangering one's life, would you still do it? If someone today plucks a hair from you in the name of benefiting the world, tomorrow they will cut off your leg, and the day after tomorrow, they will demand your head. This seems to be in line with Western modern individualistic thought, which is to be highly vigilant against the hands of government power and to defend private rights.
Yang Zhu also said, "Even if the world offers everything to me, I will not accept it." From this perspective, Yang Zhu opposed the idea of "the world belongs to the king, and everyone is a subject of the king." Yang Zhu supported "valuing oneself" and "rebirth," but at the same time, he also opposed "infringing upon others" and "indulging in desires." He believed that wisdom should be valued for serving oneself, and violence should be condemned for violating others' property. While defending individual rights, one should also respect the rights of others and oppose the infringement of "rights" by "power."
Yang Zhu's reflection on an ideal society was, "If everyone does not harm the world even a bit and does not benefit at the expense of the world, then the world will be governed." He said, "If one governs externally but neglects internal governance, things may not be governed; if one governs internally, it can be extended to the world." If everyone governs themselves and does not harm or infringe upon others, if everyone respects and loves themselves, then everyone will find their place, and the world will be governed.
It was precisely this moral stance and ideological doctrine that advocated the inviolability of the rights to life, freedom, and property and emphasized the intrinsic value of individuals that were isolated and hunted down by the various schools.
Mencius criticized Yang and Mo together, saying, "If the Yang school is allowed to do as they please, there will be no ruler; if the Mo school advocates universal love, there will be no fathers. Without fathers and rulers, they are beasts." Mencius accused Yang and Mo of spreading misleading ideas: "The Yang and Mo schools' doctrines never cease, while Confucius' teachings are not established. They are evil teachings that confuse the people and obstruct benevolence and righteousness."
"Mencius' criticism of Yang" is the core viewpoint of Mencius' opposition to Yang Zhu, while "not giving up even a single hair" is a wonderful description of his ethical attitude. When Mencius criticized Yang and Mo, he also revealed the true nature of standing on the platform of Confucianism to support authoritarian rule. "Without fathers and rulers, they are beasts" is it not following the so-called "respecting fathers and rulers, and maintaining the order of heaven and earth, restraining the sun and promoting the moon"?
Wu Yu, known as the "cleaner of the Chinese intellectual world" and the "hero who single-handedly brought down the Kong family store in Sichuan," wrote "Distinguishing Mencius and Refuting the Fallacies of Yang and Mo." He believed that Mencius was a "dictator of the church." He said, "The Yang school allows me to do as I please, which is not conducive to interference. The Mo school advocates universal love and equality, which is not conducive to dictatorship. Both are deeply feared by future tyrants. The Confucians strictly adhere to hierarchy, value order, and advocate the blind talk of heaven above and blessings below, suppressing and accelerating, which is most suitable for the art of tyrants controlling the people. Therefore, all tyrants use it to dominate the world and deceive the people."
Wu Yu believed that Mencius provided the ruling class with the "art of controlling the people" to rule the world.
With Dong Zhongshu, the intention to flatter the authoritarian monarch became even more direct. Dong Zhongshu criticized Yang Zhu, saying, "Justice does not enter a city in danger, does not engage in military affairs, and does not exchange a single hair on its shin for the great benefit of the world. The ruler will surely honor and respect such a wise and virtuous person, valuing their intelligence and praising their conduct as a person who values material possessions and values rebirth. The ruler establishes fertile fields and mansions, and establishes titles and rewards to exchange for the lives and loyalty of the people. Now, the ruler honors and respects those who value material possessions and values rebirth, but demands that the people sacrifice their lives and loyalty for the ruler's affairs. This cannot be achieved."
In order to protect the interests of the "ruler," Dong Zhongshu believed that Yang Zhu's "individual liberalism" would lead to no one willing to sacrifice themselves for the "ruler." In Dong Zhongshu's view, the emperor's power is divine, and all subjects are born to serve the emperor. The country and the state are the emperor's private property, and even your life is bestowed by the emperor. Where is there room for "individual freedom"?
Of course, Dong Zhongshu's criticism of Yang Zhu had another purpose, which was to "dismiss the Hundred Schools and exalt Confucianism." Dong's Confucianism and Legalism were in harmony with authoritarian rule. The so-called "heretical and fallacious teachings" were all mercilessly suppressed and imprisoned. The era of the "Hundred Schools of Thought" came to an end, and Chinese civilization entered a long and tedious period of "Yang Confucianism and Yin Legalism" authoritarian empire. Yang Zhu's "valuing oneself" thinking also sank into the pile of criticism and was not dared to be mentioned again.
During that period, the spark of "freedom" was spreading like wildfire in another part of the world.