Daoist and Confucian Views on Political Power

Daoism and Confucianism are often contrasted as opposing philosophies. In some ways, they are very different. Confucianism emphasizes ritual, while Daoism rejects ritual in favor of following the natural path, or Dao. However, these two Chinese philosophies are similar when it comes to their views on political power. In terms of their views on a ruler's power and its origin, the similarities between Daoist and Confucian thought are more significant than the differences.

Central to both religions is a metaphysical view of justice against which mortal plans are futile. Both Daoists and Confucians accept as truth that the good ruler will succeed, the corrupt, fall. Moreover, the virtuous ruler does not triumph by trying hard, but rises easily like oil through water. "Not daring to be first in the world, one is able to become its leader" (de Bary 93), reads one passage of the Daodejing, suggesting that brute strength can never triumph over the virtue of a heavenly-mandated ruler. According to both philosophies, one paradoxically achieves power through wu wei, or "doing nothing."

Confucian texts discuss a magnetic virtue possessed by a good ruler, which draws people to him. In the Analects, Confucius points to the sage king Shun as an ideal ruler, saying, "All he did was make himself reverent and face south in a correct posture, that is all" (de Bary 59), referencing the position a ruler takes, according to custom. The implication is that people will recognize their rightful ruler when he appears. The ruler who is virtuous and trusted by his subjects need only raise a hand and the people will follow.

In Daoism, too, there is this idea that power comes easily to the virtuous ruler, but cannot be maintained by the corrupt one. "If one desires to take the empire and act on it, I see that he will not succeed" (de Bary 86), says the Daodejing. The successful ruler is able to maintain power by serving the people and being humble-remaining "below them" and "behind them" (de Bary 92), even while they follow his sway. Although the Daoists dispute the value of rituals and strictly defined virtues, they agree with the Confucians that at the root of the matter, a good ruler must serve the people. Under his rule, "the people do not find it a burden"; they "are not hurt" (de Bary 92). With its typical paradoxes, the Daodejing says a ruler succeeds by humility (or at least the appearance of it), because the people do not find him a threat but a friend.

The Confucian and Daoist interpretations of political power do have different nuances. The Confucian view is more straightforward and intuitive. Confucius's view is that a true ruler must act supremely nobly, and this will earn the respect and loyalty of his subjects. The power of the ruler hinges on virtue. "Raise up the upright; put them over the crooked: the people will submit" (de Bary 47), said Confucius. It is through doing right that the ideal Confucian ruler excels. The Daoist view is more paradoxical, and at times, self-contradictory. Discarding the idea of virtue being the cornerstone of societal advancement, the Daodejing suggests the ruler gains power by doing nothing. But what does this mean? It's very cryptic. For one thing, by discounting virtue, the Daoist idea of the ruler stops being a moral one and becomes a tactical one, thus turning from a straightforward question of right and wrong to a complex one of means and ends. "If one wants to be ahead of the people, One must, in using one's person, remain behind them" (de Bary 92), says the Daodejing, but this doesn't say the ruler must be humble, it just means he must appear so. In the Daodejing, turns of phrase such as , "the state's sharp weapons should be revealed to no one" (de Bary 86), reveal a wilyness and tactical emphasis that lacks a counterpart in the Analects (especially when we consider the story of Confucius saying he didn't know anything about warfare, but could expound at length on rituals).

These differences between Confucian and Daoist thought may seem large, but the two views on the origins of power are ultimately similar. Both ideologies are variants of the ancient idea of the Mandate of Heaven: the Confucians explain the mandate as being bestowed on virtuous leaders; the Daoists refuse to label this leadership quality x as virtue, but x looks, smells and sounds like virtue, so it can't be too far off for practical purposes. Both schools of thought recognize that the power comes from the people. The ruler must serve the people, instill trust, placate them, or his reign cannot last, no matter the military might.

Work cited: de Bary, Theodore and Irene Bloom. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.