Building Castles in the Sand: A Review of Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power

Abstract

This article reviews Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power (Princeton University Press, 2011). The key concept argued in the volume is ‘humane authority’ or moral authority (wang dao), as opposed to hegemony (ba dao).1 Daniel Bell suggests in the introduction that Yan Xuetong, the main author, is a political realist because his analysis is about ‘the way the political world actually works, not just an ideal’.2 Nevertheless, ‘A Note on the Translation’ highlights that the term ‘wang’ in ‘wang dao’ represents ‘the political ideal of pre-Qin [classical3] thinkers’.4 Indeed, as the book title suggests, Yan’s analysis relies on ‘ancient Chinese thought’ rather than ancient Chinese history. Without solid grounding in history, the analysis of ‘humane authority’ largely falls into the realm of the ideal. This article first analyzes the disjuncture between ancient Chinese thought and ancient Chinese history. It then reviews the analysis of effective governance that is central to the establishment of moral authority. It also examines the volume’s efforts to draw lessons from ‘ancient Chinese thought’ for ‘contemporary International Relations (IR) theory’ and ‘modern Chinese power.’ Because the understanding of ‘ancient Chinese thought’ is unhistorical and that of IR theory is untheoretical, the authors’ attempts to develop new theoretical insights and policy recommendations are no more fruitful than building castles in the sand. While this volume should be applauded for introducing ‘ancient Chinese thought’ to the IR discipline, it falls short in delivering the promises.