WAYS OF THINKING II: STATECRAFT AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY ...€¦ · Ways of Thinking II: Kingship,...

Ways of Thinking II: Kingship, Emperors, & Statecraft: Class & Caste 1

WAYS OF THINKING II: STATECRAFT AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY

© Robert Menzies

KEY THEMES IN GOVERNANCE: ANCIENT, MIDDLE INDIA & CHINA

INTRODUCTION

We have looked at the period of the Warring States in China and of matsya-nyaya in India, so it

would be good to look a bit more closely at some of the political and social themes of that time. We do

this in order to see patterns that are similar in these areas.

First, both of the areas had several centuries of chronic civil war. As we have noted, this did not

mean that battles were a regular occurrence. Rather, there were constantly shifting political and military

alliances with the occasional major battles. The biggest issue was overall instability. At the royal courts it

meant infighting, factionalism and assassination. At the wider social level, it meant food insecurity as the

peasants were taxed disproportionately, which exacerbated any problems like drought and crop failure.

As time went on, larger states conquered smaller states, ultimately leading to the creating of empires.

The second theme of the day is the process of “universal empire creation” which was influenced

by power from the peripheries as the old, traditional power-players lost their cultural and military influence

and were replaced, dominated, or conquered by new power-players. This was no longer kings defeating

their neighbours, but a development of what we could call “empires.” A “kingdom” is, more or less, a

fairly small, and ethnically and linguistically homogeneous unit. “Empires” tend to be multicultural and

multilinguistic. At this time, we see kings expanding their territory so much that they are not just

conquering their neighbors, but going much further afield.


Third, this was also a time when the military expanded dramatically, and battles, when they

happened, were now between large, well-equipped armies. The scale of warfare, as well as its duration,

was now much larger and longer.

A fourth theme flows from number three: imperialism, bureaucracies, and communication. These

are all the things necessary to run a multicultural empire. If kingdoms are now too large to ride across in

just a few days, it is impossible for the king to know personally what is going on throughout his kingdom.

This means he must delegate authority, and the authority must be administered on his order with a fair

amount of consistency. This means that he must have agents, or bureaucrats, who are in charge of certain

aspects of his administration. In order for them to all be working for the same things, there must be

communication between them, and this must be regulated and monitored by the king. In a “feudal” system,

the king only has nominal control; he has people below him, but they administer their area as they see fit

and may provide soldiers to the king if he asks. In a more bureaucratized system, the ruler has

administrators who work in his name, not their own, to govern. This takes an organised bureaucracy with

levels, advancement, a pay structure, and the communication from the centre to keep things consistent.

A fifth theme also flows from the others: standardisation. It is important to have a standardisation

of weights and measures so that a unit of grain or cloth in one part of the empire is the same as in all of

the other parts. It also means standardisation of currency, usually based on the minting of coinage. And it

means standardisation of laws and policies. While these could be changed at the whim of the ruler, once

they were made policy, every administrator in the country was required to apply these policies. These

policies could include taxation, trade routes, acceptable religious practices, dress codes, and so on.

Another theme we see in this period of turbulence was the shift in religious outlook and an

explosion of religious solutions to the problems of social unrest. We have seen some of these philosophical


and religions solutions. This is the sixth similarity between these areas: cultural innovation that included

the rise of cities, and reform ideologies, the rationalising of orthodoxy as it pushed back against reform.

A seventh theme found in both India and China is the creation of “statecraft.” This is a direct result

of the previous one: social unrest and intellectuals who develop a plan to resolve it. If the king is the

ultimate authority in a state, and if the king wants to stay alive, it would be good to have a set of principles

upon which to base his policies and actions. The first two major treatises on “statecraft” were developed.

In India, it was Kautilya and his Arthashastra. In China, it was the school of Legalism, and Han Feizi is a

representative example of this school of thought. Here is where the similarities end, however. Han Feizi

and Kautilya have very different views on how a king ought to operate, and we will look at this in a bit.

The following is a chart, by no means exhaustive, of some of the specifics of these themes, as

well as a few others.

China India

Warring States Chronic warfare of matsya-nyaya

Qin Conquest/Reunification Rise of Magadha/Mauryan Empire

100 Schools of Philosophy questioning orthodoxy Buddhism, Jainism and “Hindu” philosophy

questioning orthodoxy

Traditionalist ritualists support orthodoxy Hindu philosophical school supports orthodoxy

Writing/control of history/propaganda (Legalists

and early “historians”)

Writing, epics, reinterpretations of history and

telling of history through “religion” and story

Interregional communication Interregional communication

Rise of gentry Rise of gentry

Rise of merchant class Rise of merchant class

Shi (scholars; mostly Confucian) Shreni (“managers”) and scholars; mostly

Brahmin caste

Class system based on Confucius Caste system based on Hindu myth/ritual


CHINESE LEGALISM AND HAN FEIZI (280-233 BCE)

The so-called “School of Law” (fajia) arose in the Warring States Period, although significantly

later than Confucius. This is called a “School (jia) of Law (fa)” because it was a loose group of thinkers

who all had one basic uniting principle: the loose, disjointed and relatively easy-going feudal system needs

to be reformed and give way to tough and all embracing law in all states. Legalists rejected the moral

standards of the Confucianists in favor of power. Legalism accepts no authority other than that of the ruler.

Its aim was political control of the state and its populace, through a clear set of laws, applied by generous

rewards and severe punishments. Confucians were dedicated to the cultivation of virtue, the development

of individual personality, government for the people, social harmony and the use of moral principles,

moral examples and moral persuasion. Legalists were interested in the accumulation of power, the

subjugation of the individual to the state, and the use of force. There has been no continuous school of

Legalism since Han Feizi, but these ideas have permeated policy in various ways throughout Chinese

history.

Most of the other philosophers of the Warring States Period (Confucius, Mencius, Laozi,

Zhuangzi, Mozi, etc.) were concerned with the plight of the common people. These common people were

crushed by poverty, oppressed by those wealthier and more powerful than they were, burdened by taxation

caused by constant war, and other problems inherent in constant war. Many held that all the people, not

only the nobles, could only be fulfilled when there was order among the people as a whole. Confucius felt

that this control and order could be achieved through virtue. Confucius was not in favor of a strict written

law but leadership by moral example. Legalists felt this was nonsense and Confucius was hopelessly naive.

Human beings are not good and cannot be led by example. Rather, humans are to be ruled for their own

good by playing to their desires. That is, above all, humans can only be controlled by controlling their 1)

material desire (carrot) and 2) fear of punishment (stick). As a result, laws must be clear, strong and


administered quickly so there can be no doubt as to the efficacy of these laws. For Legalists, the only way

to unify a country is to conquer it; make the state rich, arm it, and militarize it, and crush all opposition.

This strengthening of the country can only be accomplished through a strong ruler. Therefore, the

people should work to enrich the ruler, and the people should be taught to be enthusiastic about war. For

Legalists this is not tyranny. Rather, they argued that they were working in the best interests of the people.

For Legalists, a stern, or even harsh, government, is for the sake of the common people as well as for the

ruler. Harsh government is for the sake of the people, just like soldiers die for the common good. The ruler

punishes people, but only for their benefit. Every individual is to be taught, and actually compelled, to

live and die for the state without any regard for their own desires and welfare. There is still the goal of

benefiting the greatest number, but the means to this goal is significantly different from Confucius.

Han Feizi (ca280-233 BCE)

One important thinker of this school was Han Feizi. Han Feizi’s thought has made somewhat of a

renaissance under the Maoist government in China and in many Western political thinkers. Unlike

Confucius, Han Feizi was a noble. The other philosophers of the day seem to have originally been low-

level aristocrats who somehow sank into poverty and no longer had any real power. As we see from their

lives and works, they have no real loyalty to their kings; they were loyal in that they did not advocate open

rebellion, but they were not reluctant to criticize their own king, nor to travel to other countries and work

as advisors there. Han Feizi, on the other hand, was a prince of the royal family of Han, which had been

able to secede and become independent from the Zhou kingdom 403 BCE.

Han Feizi was born around 280 BCE and studied under Xunzi, a brilliant Confucian scholar. He

was painfully loyal to the state of Han and wrote several political essays on Han. These came to the

attention of the king of Qin, the first emperor of China, who invited Han Feizi to his court. One of Han


Feizi’s fellow students was the prime minister there. He questioned Han Feizi’s loyalty to the Qin court

and Han Feizi was imprisoned and eventually poisoned.

Human Nature

According to Han Feizi, people are naturally selfish and materialistic. Whether we consider

religion, obedience to the ruler, our relationship with parents, spouse or children, or our dealings with

other people, all relationships are permeated with the desire for advantage. Fathers control their sons; sons

try to outwit their fathers, or live off them without having to get a real job. Husbands beat their wives;

wives manipulate their husbands. For the legalists, all of Confucius’ relationships are seen as competition

rather than cooperation.

Han Feizi criticized Confucians who felt that kings should rule by moral example. Han Feizi

argued that this idea of leadership leads to corruption of the whole world: no one leads by example; people

lead and follow based on their own needs. Confucius often claimed that we can reclaim the “Golden Age”

of virtue if the rulers act virtuously. Han Feizi’s reply was that we simply cannot go back to a “Golden

Age.” Han Feizi compared this goal of Confucius to the farmer who tried to catch a hare. Once a farmer

saw a hare run into a tree and knock itself out. Then he spent the rest of his life hiding behind the tree

hoping that more hares would do the same thing. Expecting the conditions of antiquity to return is naïve.

Han Feizi blamed much of the world’s problems on “useless scholars.” By this he meant Confucian

scholars. He considered these scholars to be wasting time in useless discussion. This resulted in more

“students” which led to fewer farmers and soldiers. Even studying war and law reduces the number who

are actually available to fight. Further, scholars indirectly slander their rulers by praising antiquity, and in

doing so these scholars undercut the rulers’ ability to rule.


The Legalist technique with human beings is like the training of Big Cats. Lions and tigers cannot

be tamed, but they can be controlled. Likewise, people cannot be tamed; they can only be controlled

through rewards and punishments. Confucians criticized Han Feizi as being too simplistic and not

considering power of education to transform and socialize human beings; they criticized him for focusing

too much on reward and punishment. Han Feizi wrote that rewards should be generous, clear and quick

so that people will value them. Punishments should be severe, inevitable, obvious and quick so that people

would fear them. Laws should be uniform, equal, universal and definite so that people can understand

them. The ruler should be strong so that he can reward generously and punish without mercy.

Law and Punishment

Han Feizi worked as an advisor to several kings. In one state where he was an advisor, he pushed

for a law that anyone who threw ashes into the street should have his hand cut off. This was the idea that

small faults should be punished severely so that no major crimes occur. Han Feizi called this “the use of

punishment to prevent punishment.” That is, punishment uses the victim as an example, and so causes

people to fear laws. This may seem harsh, but Han Feizi was not concerned with the individual. He was

concerned with the strengthening of the state which would benefit all individuals.

The intelligent ruler uses law and punishment to compel people to act as they should. He places

absolutely no value on spontaneous virtue which is accidental and unreliable. That is, we simply cannot

rely on other people’s kindness because, since all people are inherently self-oriented, our needs must line

up with theirs in order for them to help us. The intelligent ruler does not himself act in what the Confucian

scholar would call “a virtuous manner” by being kind to people and helping them in adversity. To tax the

rich and redistribute wealth is to punish industry and frugality. Helping the poor by giving them aid that

comes from taxing the wealthy is to penalize the wealthy for working hard to earn that wealth, and it


rewards the laziness of the poor. “The sage, in governing a state, does not trust men to do good of

themselves; he makes it impossible for them to do wrong. In the entire state you could not find ten men

who can be trusted to do good of themselves, but if you make it impossible for the people to do wrong the

whole state can nevertheless be kept in order. A ruler must concern himself with the majority, not with

individuals. Thus, he takes no account of virtue but concerns himself rather with law.”

Love Versus Self-Interest

Han Feizi never claimed that people did not love one another, but he did contend that love is

secondary to the desire for advantage.

There is nothing like the warm feelings between sons and fathers. … But there is something

more (than love) in the relationship of fathers and mothers with their sons. If a son is born,

then they congratulate each other. If a daughter is born, they may kill it. Both these have

come out of the mothers’ womb, and when it is a boy, congratulations and when a girl,

death. The parents are thinking of convenience later on. They calculate the long-term profit.

Thus it is that even fathers and mothers in their relation to their children have calculating

minds and treat them accordingly.

The same is true of employees.

When a man sells his services as a farmhand, the master will give good food at the expense

of his own family, and pay him money and cloth. This is not because he loves the farm

hand, but he says, “In this way his plowing of the ground will go deeper, and his sowing

of seeds be more active.” The farm hand, on the other hand, exerts his strength and works

busily at tilling and weeding. He exerts himself not because he loves his master, but he

said, “in this way I shall have good food, money and cloth.

Both of them act as if they love each other, but it is merely a relationship for mutual advantage.

They may act like father and son, but their hearts are centered on utility: they are serving

themselves to their own best advantages. People only work hard when it is obvious to the boss and

bosses only pay their employees to get them to work.


Statecraft

Because of this analysis of human nature, the art of statecraft would advise the ruler not to

let his desires be known to the ministers under him. If the likes and dislikes of the ruler are

concealed, the true hearts of the ministers will be revealed. So, the ideal ruler will not allow true

desires to show. He should never forget that, like the farmer’s hired hand, ministers have no tie to

their king; they are there because they are paid. Their lives depend on pleasing their king, so they

always watch his moods and give advice in their own interests.

Physicians help out their patients to turn a profit. When the cartwright makes carriages, he

wants people to be wealthy. When the carpenter finishes making coffins, he wants people to die

early. It is not that the cartwright is benevolent, and the carpenter is cruel. Rather, each one wants

to sell his goods, regardless of the consequences to others. Similarly, the ruler must always pay

attention for those who would profit from his death. It is not that his sons or queens want him dead,

it is just that they would profit from it.

As a result, the wise ruler should always be governed by enlightened self-interest. He must

not trust his own friends and relatives. All of them would profit, in one way or another, by his

death. So, the wise ruler must always be on the lookout for deception, trusting no one.

Han Feizi taught ruler how to survive and prosper. This benefits people because the country

has order. Strong ruler = order. But to accomplish this, austerity and authoritarianism was the order

of the day.


SOUTH ASIAN STATECRAFT: MAURYAN EMPIRE AND KAUTILYA’S ARTHASHASTRA

Here is a case where terminology and personalities are significantly less clear in South Asia than

in East Asia. While we know a great deal about the person of Han Feizi, we do not really know with

certainty about “Kautilya.” There are a number of legends associated with the name “Kautilya.” The text

we refer to as “Kautilya’s Arthashastra” was not, in fact, written by a single person named “Kautilya.”

Rather, there are various names associated with the text, and it seems likely that it was written by a number

of people over several centuries, and portions of it were adopted and put into practical application under

Chandragupta Maurya. It is attributed to Kautilya because it was written by scholars of the Kautilya clan.

This was often the case with Dhrarmashastras as well. They were the standard text of a particular clan,

but associated with a sage whose name is the same of that clan. Nevertheless, despite any potential issues

with nomenclature and authorship, I will continue to use the term Kautilya as his personal name, simply

because it is the most common name, and it is sufficient for our purposes. The Arthashastra was composed

and edited between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE. This text is considered the fountainhead

of political science and economics in India.

The title Arthashastra is often translated to “the science of politics,” but the Arthashastra covers

more than just “politics.” It includes the nature of government, duties and obligations of the king, methods

for screening ministers, law, civil and criminal court systems, economics, markets and trade, diplomacy

and theories on war, and the nature of peace. It also includes philosophy, especially on ethics/dharma,

cultural details on agriculture, mineralogy, mining and metals, animal husbandry, medicine, and wildlife.

So, it is better to translate “Arthashastra” as “the science of prosperity” since “artha” can mean profit, but

also success or “prosperity” in general.


The king, the ministers, the country, the forts, the treasury, the army, the allies are the seven limbs

of the state. To this we could add “philosophy” as an underlying support of critical thinking for the king

to make decisions based on the seven limbs, and “dharma” as an underlying concept or ethos.

The King

Like Han Feizi, the Arthashastra centers around the ruler. However, the Arthashastra is closer to

Confucianism in its understanding of the ideal king. It calls the king a raja-rishi. Rishis are the ascetics

who lived in the forests and received the divinely inspired religious texts. They prepared themselves for

this reception through meditation. So, rishi is best translated as “sage,” because they are wise in both the

ways of the world and in ways beyond the physical world. This is similar to the Confucian notion of the

sage-king, where the ruler has become wise through self-cultivation. Han Feizi focuses on hereditary

kingship and power rather than having only the most virtuous ruling. Here is a clear difference between

Han Feizi and the Arthashastra. However, like Han Feizi, the king is the centre of the government and all

policy flows from the king.

For the Arthashastra, the sage-king (raja-rishi) is to be a public servant who rules well because of

his sage-ness. The raja-rishi is self-controlled and not tempted by sensual indulgence; he studies

constantly so as to learn, and then uses this knowledge for the benefit of his people; he avoids false and

flattering advisors and surrounds himself with people who will speak the truth and are accomplished in

their area of expertise; he genuinely promotes the welfare of the citizens; and so on. A true king gains the

loyalty of his people not because he is king, but because he is just. So, the king has no need to hide his

emotions and desires; the key to good advice from ministers is to choose good ministers in the first place.


The Ministers

The choice in advisors is always a key act for leaders. If they are good and are experts in their

field, they will give good advice. If they are not experts, are sycophants, or, worse yet, are overly

ambitious, their advice will be problematic at the very least. So, the Arthashastra has many different

sections advising the king on some crucial strategies to choose ministers. In comes down to three things:

1) their past actions; 2) their character; 3) their values. Their actions are fairly clear, but “character”

includes their tendency to honesty in avoiding corruption, for example, and giving honest answers to the

king. Values would include, most of all, their belief in providing a stable society and working for all

people. Here, the Arthashastra is quite different than Han Feizi on human nature and the role of ministers.

However, the Arthashastra suggests that a large number of people working for the king should be

secret inspectors who report directly to the king. That is, they should be spies who travel the country

reporting on administrators and ministers. So, while the choice in minister should be carefully considered,

and they should be trusted, this trust should also be verified by independent sources.

The Treasury

The Arthashastra is an example of the changing society of the day. The old Aryan economic

system based on herds was no longer viable in an increasingly urban culture. So, the text focuses on a

mixed economy with both private and state ownership. However, private economic activities were heavily

regulated, and some activity was solely owned by state. Arthashastra recognises that taxation can be a

hot-button issue, so it recommends restraint and fairness in its policy. The text suggests that the tax should

be “convenient to pay, easy to calculate, inexpensive to administer, equitable and non-distortive, and not

inhibit growth.” Fair taxes build popular support for the king; unfair taxes create social unrest and


rebellion. The taxation policy suggests three things: 1) taxing power of the state is limited; 2) taxation

should not be felt to be heavy or discriminatory; and 3) tax increases should be gradual.

This mixed economy of private and public ownership was an effective model in the ancient world.

With the standardised weights and measures, and a standardised currency, trade flourished. Government

monopolies on mining, shipping and textiles led to direct income for the government. Private enterprise,

particularly the merchants, were taxed (fairly, but heavily), and the merchant guilds seem to have been

fairly willing to pay taxes as long as the government was in control and kept banditry to a minimum.

The Forts, The Army, and War

Finally, the Arthashastra suggests that the state must always be adequately fortified, its army

should always be prepared, and both forts and the military should be financed well so the state can defend

itself. The text suggests that peace is better than war, because peace is better for the prosperity and security

of the people.

However, if a war is inevitable, all means to win a war are acceptable. This includes the

assassination of enemy leaders, creating disharmony and distrust in the enemy leadership, using spies,

using propaganda to demoralize enemy soldiers and support their own troops. This is in addition to overt

battle. If the state is victorious, defeated soldiers and conquered subjects should be treated humanely and

folded into the social system of the state as new, but equal citizens.

CONCLUSION AND COMPARISONS

So, what we have in comparing Han Feizi and the Arthashastra is a fine focus on bureaucracy and

some clearly laid out “rules” for running a country. In all cases, the focus is on the benefit of the most

people, but Han Feizi has a more top-down focus. That is to say, Han Feizi feels that the king is in power


as set there by the gods (or Tian), but once in a position of power, it was most beneficial to all people that

he use any means necessary to keep power and maintain the stability of the country with an iron rule. The

Arthashastra, is more of a bottom-up focus. While the king is still the one who makes policy and is in

power, there is a much greater emphasis on the king creating loyalty through sound policy rather than

simply demanding it as his birthright.

Both Han Feizi and the Arthashastra are quite willing to use spies to gather information, but there

seems to be a different motivation. For Han Feizi, it is because people cannot be trusted to tell the truth or

do what they are told, so every act needs verification because human beings are only interested in their

own benefit. For the Arthashastra, it is more a case of trusting, but then getting independent verification.

Finally, both texts are fine with militarisation, fortification and warfare, but, again, the

Arthashastra is somewhat more moderate than Han Feizi. Pitched battle is expensive and often

counterproductive. So, any other means to win a war, or to avoid it through diplomacy, is both ethical and

practical. And, again, unlike Han Feizi, once the war is won, the conquered subjects should have the same

rights and responsibilities as other subjects, and should be subject to the same even-handed taxation policy.


DHARMA

Introduction

We have looked at statecraft in Han Feizi and the Arthashastra, and we can connect Han Feizi to

the ethical system we have seen before in Confucius. The first two “aims of man” in Hinduism are Dharma

(ethics/morality) and Artha (profit/success/prosperity). We have seen Kautilya on statecraft, so it is

important to look at “ethics” in ancient India as well, because this is understood as a base of the seven

limbs of the kingdom the Arthashastra examines in detail. Dharma was taken seriously by the

Arthashastra, as we note in the following passage:

The root of happiness is dharma, the root of dharma is artha, the root of artha is right

governance, the root of right governance is victorious inner-restraint, the root of victorious

inner-restraint is humility, the root of humility is serving the aged.

Kautilya, Chanakya Sutra 1-6

Definition

Dharma is a problematic word to translate. In fact, it may be the most problematic of all the

Sanskrit terms to render into English. This is not because dharma is not understood. Rather, there is such

a wide variety of uses because dharma is such a powerful concept.

1- “Ethics.” Dharma can be translated as “ethics.” However, there is such context sensitivity to

“ethical” action in Hinduism, that this is very different from Western philosophical systems.

2- “Righteousness.” This is correct action, but it has an inherently religious dimension.

3- “Duty.” This is a somewhat more all-encompassing translation. It gives the sense of obligation

that individuals have to act in an “ethical” and righteous way, both socially and ritually.

4- “Law.” This is the sense of universal requirement which provides stability to the universe. It

is “order” on a cosmic scale. It also refers to human social and political sanctions.

5- “Justice.” Again, this has a universal and local sense. The universe is just, and human-authored

laws are just. To break the law or to go against the moral order is to go against dharma.


6- “Religion/caste/community identity.” In contemporary usage, people will often merge their

religious obligations and the identity drawn from their home community.

7- “Correct action.” This is the overall lifestyle. Where karma is particular action, dharma is the

general support of the system, and this overall lifestyle is infused with all of the previous ethical

meanings already mentioned.

Dharma Texts

There are several different sources on dharma. There are long sections of the Sanskrit epics on

dharma; the Arthashastra has long sections on dharma; and later literatures often have asides on dharma,

even if the main subject matter is completely different. However, the type of text specifically focused on

“dharma” are the “Law Books,” Dharma Shastras.

Dharma Shastras are texts on social interaction, ethical action and codes of behavior between

individuals which then supports the social system. It is here that we find specific injunctions for the

Brahmin householder. There is no discussion of the specifics of ritual activity, say, the marriage rites, for

example. But the Dharma Shastras go into great detail on whom one can marry and in what context. These

texts consider dharma to be a universal and all-encompassing law, applicable to all people. However, it is

flexible enough to be adaptable to all situations. In fact, the Dharma Shastras often go on at length about

the various exceptions to the rule they have just given. This seems to have been an attempt to make dharma

universal while still accepting its context-sensitivity.

Context-Sensitivity

The all-encompassing nature of the Dharma Shastras naturally led to long passages on exceptions.

There is a logic behind this, however. Dharma is context-sensitive and based on the social location (caste)


and stage in life. While this may seem like a needless set of rules, the overall goal was to maintain social

stability so the Brahmins could maintain their ritual purity and do the rituals where were understood to

maintain the universe. The key to social stability, for the Shastras, is the smooth running of society based

on social location determined by birth (caste).

The Bhagavad Gita makes a clear statement on the context-sensitivity of dharma which is then

picked up on by the Dharma Shastras. Manu 10.97 picks up on the statement in Gita 3:35: “Better one’s

own dharma done imperfectly than another’s dharma done perfectly.” That is, it is better to be a poorly

skilled warrior, but try to live up to that caste obligation than give up the caste obligation and be a brilliant

musician. Why? Because we are in our caste because of our past karma. We are all in different situations

with different inherent abilities and that keeps society running. In order to maintain a stable society and

clean up our karmic account, we must make the best of the situation we are in. Act according to your

station in life and act properly. This is not a free-for all. Individuals are required to act in particular ways

based on the dharma expectations of their caste and stage in life. There are rules. It is just that the rules

are different for different individuals based on varna(caste)-ashrama(stage in life)-dharma. So, the

context of one’s dharma is based on their birth location (caste, determined by karma from a previous life)

and their stage in life (ashrama).


SOCIAL HIERARCHY IN ANCIENT SOUTH ASIA (CASTE?)

South Asia is inherently hierarchical. Even greetings are expressions of asymmetry. In Hinduism,

one is to identify one’s superiors visually by touching their feet and symbolically placing the dust of their

feet above one’s head. This is a symbolic articulation of the statement, “I am so unworthy that even the

dust of your feet is superior to me.” This is used with transactions between humans and between humans

and the gods. One is to enter a temple by taking off one’s footwear and touching the lintel and then one’s

head, putting the dust of the building above one’s head. “Not only are you superior, O Deity, but you are

so superior that even the building housing an image of you is superior to me.”

Caste I: Varna

Ostensibly, caste is a development out of the primeval human, Purusha. In Rigveda 10.90,11-12

we read of Purusha’s dismemberment: his mouth became the Brahmin, his arms were made into the

Kshatriyas, his thighs the Vaishyas, and from his feet the Shudras were born.

Now, this brings up the question of the “Hindu” nature of caste; there is a Hindu mythico-religious

justification for caste. However, in South Asia today we can find many non-Hindus who also accept a

caste identity or social hierarchy. Muslims are often relatively far down the scale and have such traditional

occupations as weavers, butchers, and removers of animal carcases. But Muslims are also very successful

merchants and the “jewelry” section of Banaras, for example, is a primarily Muslim neighborhood called

Sonapur (City of Gold). Jains are often Baniyas (merchants and moneylenders) because that trade allows

them to conform to the principle of ahimsa quite effectively. Yet, Islam, Jainism and Sikhism all officially

deny social hierarchy and support egalitarianism in their texts, yet the practice of these communities is

often clearly hierarchical (with whom do you share food and marriage relationships?).


So non-Hindus accept caste although it is primarily of Hindu derivation. This derivation, as with

many things, is both more complex and simpler than you might imagine. The basis of the caste system is

the term varna. Literally varna means “colour” in the sense of characteristic or attribute, not skin colour.

So, while it is applied to humans, it is also applied to all things in the universe as an organising principle.

While varna is a social hierarchy, it reflects hierarchies in many other aspects of the Hindu

conception of the world. Again, we must return to Vedic ritual. Rigveda 10.130.3 asks the question, “What

was the prototype, what was the counterpart, and what was the connection between them?” This is a clear

reference to an important concept in ritual: connection. The Sanskrit word for this is bandhu. In Vedic

ritual philosophy, there was a trend to look for replacements. If a certain thing was not present, there had

to be another thing used to take its place or the whole ritual was in jeopardy. Bandhus were therefore

sought so that one could use replacement ingredients and still perform the ritual properly. These bandhus

were a way of linking things across categories as well as linking them vertically in a hierarchy. Varna is

a taxonomy of the universe as a whole so as to best provide alternate ritual implements: people, places,

things, ingredients, times, and so on.

The texts were written by Brahmins, so there is a Brahmin-bias here placing them at the top. No

matter how you slice it the varna classification is designed to separate one from the other and indicate

hierarchy. Brahmins are above everyone else. Brahmins have the obligation (dharma) to do the rituals to

maintain the universe. Kshatriyas are warriors tasked with maintaining order politically and militarily.

Vaishyas are merchants who maintain economy. Shudras do the physical work everyone else needs. There

are long and detailed essentialist explanations of the inherent natures of the various castes, and they are

all based on the assumption that action in a previous life (karma) has determined the caste and the essential

abilities of the person in this life.


This taxonomy is massive in scope and suggests that this hierarchy is the way the universe works.

Thus, the varna system is supernaturally as well as socially ordained. Hierarchy is comprehensive and

includes: the social groupings (caste), the cardinal directions, types of beings, gods, animals, fruits, grains,

trees, seasons, days, times of day, poetic meters, and so on.

This was initially a three-part hierarchy that was later expanded into a four-part hierarchy. The

reason for these expansions and the necessary philosophical reworkings within the ritual theorists’ texts

has to do with the changing nature of society. As far as we can tell, Aryan society was essentially tripartite:

Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya. The others simply fell outside of the system. They were called dasus,

literally “slaves” and were clearly outside of the system. Later the society expanded to include these dasus

and they became the Shudras as labourers. Following this social reality, the theorists needed to rework the

system and they added the fourth caste. Even so, there were still groups of people outside the caste system.

They are technically avarna (without varna) and they included indigenous people as well as others who

were considered too ritually and physically polluted to be a part of the system. These are the Untouchables

who have jobs that keep them physically and ritually impure.

Caste II: Application in the Mauryan Empire

This is the classical, mythologically-based theory. In practice, there are literally hundreds of

different “sub-castes” in the modern period, and they are based on occupation. These are the jatis. It seems

that this parallel social hierarchy began to develop in the Mauryan Empire. All of what we have about the

social structures of the Mauryan empire come from the Greek historian Megasthenes. We need, therefore,

to be somewhat cautious in our use of this information. Greek historians were known for accuracy, but

also for including myth, legend, and rumour in their work. However, Chandragupta, the founder of the

Mauryan Dynasty seems to have adopted the Aryan caste system to some extent and Brahmins were at


the top. The second ranked caste was agriculturalists. They were exempt from service in the army and

from any other similar obligations to the state. Their obligation (dharma) seems to have been to grow

food. They rented the land from the king because all land belonged to the crown. There was no private

real estate. In addition to rent, they gave ¼ of their crop to the state. The following in order are the seven

“layers” of society officially sanctioned by Chandragupta, according to Megasthenes.

1. Brahmins

2. Agriculturalists

3. Herdsmen who live outside the villages

4. Traders and artisans (who get their food from royal storage)

5. Soldiers (who also get their food from royal storage)

6. Inspectors and spies who reported to the emperor

7. Advisors and officers of the king; imperial administrators

These seven strata are not listed in this order in any Indian text, but they do seem to indicate a

couple of things that are verified in other texts. Firstly, they have the Brahmins at the top. This is fairly

typical in the textual tradition. It seems to suggest that Chandragupta was somewhat socially conservative

and knew he needed the educated class as allies. Secondly, it is a very well-ordered system. Whether or

not we agree with the rankings, they are clearly marked out and suggest a very well-ordered state. Thirdly,

several classes are paid directly by the king. This suggests a strong tendency toward centralization. Also,

and finally, is the interesting assertion that all land belongs to the crown. This, again, suggests

centralization and a desire to completely assert dominance over all of the empire.


HIERARCHY IN ANCIENT CHINA (CASTE? CLASS?)

When we discuss social hierarchy in China, we must return to Confucius and the “four Confucian

classes.” Be cautious with the number “four” here. In reality, the imperial family was above all of this and

in many ways can be seen as a fifth level. However, this was reserved for the imperial family and those

who were so highly elevated that they were connected to the imperial family, often through marriage.

These elite families were always presumed to be above all other classes, mostly because they had access

to massive amounts of land (they were the primary landholders) and because they had access to the

imperial family, either through business relationships or marriage. After the Han period, they tended to be

primarily old lineages and families from the north China plain and lower Yangzi River. That is, they are

precisely who you would expect them to be: the ancient highest-level aristocracy who had been power-

players connected with royal courts as long back as anyone could remember. So, while we see four official

Confucian classes, there is one class above them all: the imperial class.

Just as caste in India, in China, social distinction was ingrained. People assumed that there was an

essential difference between people of different rank. While in India, this revolved around the concept of

purity/pollution (a person was connected to their moral actions in the past and this determined their birth

status in this life). So, in Hindu thought, there is a connection with spiritual purity and physical purity. In

China, however, it was not purity/pollution, but “nobility” of character. Nobles were noble of character,

noble of appearance, and noble of birth. Ugly people were not noble; nobles were not ugly. One’s character

was apparent in both family status and physical appearance.

While this is often called the “Confucian classes,” this was also articulated by the Legalists, like

Han Feizi. It is sometimes called the “Four Occupations.” They are Scholars, Peasants, Artisans, and

Merchants.


Scholars (shi [士)])

The class that we now call “scholars” or shi develop out of diviners of the Shang period as well as

the “knights” of the Zhou and Warring States. They were, essentially, the aristocrats who had a right to

fight on horseback or as archers on chariots. The diviners who dealt with the oracle bones were literate

because they carved their questions on the turtle shells or oxen shoulder blades, and they maintained

records of state administration. They were also wealthy because they could afford the horses they used in

battle. In the Zhou, there were similar individuals who were ritual specialists, keepers of the court records,

and so on. They could read the texts of the past, and they carried on historical traditions. As the Zhou

breaks down and the number of royal courts proliferate, they now have an infrastructure at each court

instead of one administrative infrastructure at the centralised Zhou court. Now the shi become a much

larger class than they had been before, and this was based on education rather than military prowess. As

time went on, kings in the Warring States preferred to have professional soldiers rather than well-educated

scholars who simply had the right to fight. So, again, they evolved into a class of scholars, record keepers

and military theoreticians and strategists rather than men who put on armour to fight.

There are estimates that by the end of the Warring States Period, 4-5% of the Chinese population

was of the shi class. The shi are the professional administrators; they were literate. Their command of the

written language was their single most identifiable feature. But they were also highly educated. During

the Warring States Period, many men of this shi class functioned not only as administrators, but as

teachers. They acted as advisors to the kings; they knew history, they knew the texts of the past, they knew

books of poetry in which the folksongs were written down. Now, knowing folksongs may not seem all

that relevant to the group administrators, but if the goal is to keep the Mandate of Heaven, then it is

important to understand what the common people are thinking and feeling, and these ideas are transmitted

in folksongs. So, this administrative class was aware of most of the information necessary to give advice


to the various different kings. They also knew the ritual texts, what kind of music should be used in rituals,

and what kind of movement should be used when performing the rituals, as well as the relationship

between the various rituals and the various gods. Basically, anything is written down that has to do with

culture and government becomes the province of these shi. At first, they were simply the courtiers of local

kings, but over time they become free agents moving from state to state as advisers for various different

kings. In fact, this was so common that most of the important political philosophers functioned as

administrators for a number of different kings over their career.

Peasants (nong [农/農])

Since Neolithic times, agriculture was a key to civilization in China. Food sustained society and

the tax on land and/or food was the foundation of imperial revenue. The “peasant” or “farmer” was

recognised as a valuable member of society. So, the peasant/farmer is the second of the classes in the

hierarchy. Many English translations use the term “the people,” which should give an indication of how

they were valued.

Often the relationship between the nong and shi was strained. Around the end of the Warring States

period, agricultural land was distributed according to the “well-field system.” In this system, a square area

of land was divided into nine identically-sized sections; the eight outer sections were privately cultivated

by farmers and the center section was communally cultivated on behalf of the landowning aristocrat. That

is, the land was owned by the shi/aristocrat, and eight plots were farmed by the different peasant/nong

families. The interior plot was farmed by all of the nong families, and the proceeds went directly to the

shi. In the Warring States period, this became unsustainable it was replaced by a system of private land

ownership. Later, there were various other systems of land ownership that gave more power, influence,


and land ownership to peasants, and at other times, especially at times of weakened government control,

private ownership by the aristocracy meant a relatively impoverished peasant class.

Artisans (gong [工])

The third of the classes is the artisans and craftsmen. They are people who made things. They were

the pot-makers, painters, chopstick makers, weavers and tailors, carpet makers, brick makers, and so on.

In theory, they were specialists who manufactured goods for themselves, and then sold whatever surplus

they made. They had a very strange place within the taxation system. For much of Chinese history, the

foundation of taxation was either land or the crops grown on the land.

Artisans were usually either government-employed or worked privately. A skilled artisan could

often become wealthy enough to hire apprentices who were trained and did the work while the skilled

artisan functioned as a manager and “businessman” manufacturing and selling their own work. Like the

merchants, they formed their own guilds. These guilds often negotiated with the government regarding

taxation of artisans.

Merchants (shang [商])

Like artisans, for much of Chinese history, merchants were in an awkward place in society. They

were viewed by the aristocracy as essential members of society, yet were also seen as parasites. They did

not grow anything, manufacture anything, nor contribute to the administration of the government. They

were seen as valuable, but also as a threat to social harmony because of their acquiring disproportionally

large incomes, while not growing or manufacturing anything. Despite this, the merchant class were usually

wealthy, and this wealth gave them disproportionate influence above their social standing.


These four classes were essentially hereditary. Artisans and merchants apprenticed their sons to

follow after them in the family business. Aristocratic sons would function in the family business as

landowners, or take the bureaucratic exams to work in the government. They could also become scholars

and teach at a Confucian academy or be an advisor at court. Peasants were limited to farming. However,

even if these occupations were essentially “family businesses,” there was flexibility and a certain amount

of social mobility. This is especially true of merchants and the wealthiest of artisans. They would often

have so much money, power, and influence that they were able to marry one of their sons into a relatively

impoverished aristocratic family, and the sons of that marriage would then be groomed for aristocratic life

and the bureaucratic exams. This was a way of “lower classes” moving up into the aristocracy. This

mobility was virtually impossible for peasants since it was nearly impossible for them to amass the fortune

necessary to have this level of influence.

Civil Service and Education

The Chinese religious bureaucracy mirrored the governmental bureaucracy. There were various

layers of gods in heaven who all eventually answered to Tian; in the human sphere there were various

layers of bureaucrats who ultimately answered to the emperor. On the human level, there was a set of

bureaucratic exams to get into government service, and then various other tests, some formal and some

informal, that resulted in promotion and increase in income and status. These exams were based on the

Confucian classics, but most especially on particular interpretations of the classics. These interpretations

changed over time, depending on which sub-school of Confucianism was in vogue, and often the key idea

behind the exams was “character.” That is, a candidate would be judged by evidence of his morality and

self-cultivation. This could be his ability to answer a theoretical question in poetry while showing that he

had memorised the classics. Cultivation also meant having good penmanship. It was often thought that a


cultivated and morally/spiritually advanced person (the Confucian jonzi) would have the flexibility and

intellectual capacity to meet any administrative challenge. So, the questions were rarely on the practical

application of governance, but on theory and memorisation. This often led to good administrators because

really smart and intellectually flexible people can adapt to new situations, but it also often led to

administrators who were quite unimaginative and not particularly able to rise to meet the challenges of

new situations.

Bureaucratic Levels

Within the Chinese bureaucracy there was status based on sixteen degrees of rank, and the

accompanying pay scale differential. It is important to recognise that this was a city-based system. That

is, while there were “local” magistrates, all of the different degrees of rank were based on sixteen types of

urban locations: major cities, minor cities, towns, and so on. They were all ranked into a central location

that served as the primary administration of the area, and there were satellites of that centre. Think of it as

a series of concentric circles with the ultimate centre being the imperial palace. Each of the bureaucrats

was responsible for consulting the emperor, or his agent (the person immediately above in the chain of

command), implementing these decisions and policies, collecting taxes, and maintaining order. The

“maintenance of order” could mean that the magistrate heard court cases, but it would also mean that they

would be responsible for sending out the military to function as a police force to prosecute criminals and

put down rebellions. Each of the administrative offices, whether at the imperial court or at the local or

regional level, had multiple departments including: ceremony and records, court and household (of the

magistrate or emperor), palace/court security, “stables” (which would include keeping the horses for the

household, but also for the imperial messenger system), “punishments” (and crime), tribute and foreigners,

revenues and works (tax collection and infrastructure repair), and finance (budgeting, not the collection


of taxes). There was also a parallel bureaucracy of the military. It had the actual military power, but was,

in theory, under the jurisdiction of the civilian administration.

At the local level, the lowest level of the bureaucracy, the members of the administration would

often rely on the local shi landed gentry/aristocracy to administer policy. This could include collecting

taxes, but also making connections so as to know the power-players in the locality. This was crucial in

times of social disruption or rebellion. It was also crucial for the infrastructure maintenance because this

was usually done through corvee labour, and it was usually the local gentry who were responsible for

recruiting or bullying their peasants into these public works projects like irrigation canals and roads.

WAYS OF THINKING II: STATECRAFT AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY ...€¦ · Ways of Thinking II: Kingship,...

Documents

Transcript of WAYS OF THINKING II: STATECRAFT AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY ...€¦ · Ways of Thinking II: Kingship,...