Mencius and World Order Theories

Abstract

The international system of the Eastern Zhou has long held a fascination for international relations theorists. Like Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries it had a small number of great powers interacting over a single cultural space. Thus it presents another sandbox in which to test theories of international relations using historical data. Pre-Qin China is both a rich source of data for international relations specialists and a rich source of analytical insight. The work of Han Fei, Mo Di or Mencius is at least equal in value to that of Thucydides in the Western canon. The added value of pre-Qin China is that we have an independently authored set of historical texts that lay out the narrative of inter-state relations in ways that allow us to independently evaluate the relationship of data to interpretation and analysis. This allows us to place modern scientific analytic frames around the interpretive propositions of pre-Qin thinkers, and independently evaluate the data in that light. We are also able to reconstruct the interpretive frames of pre-Qin thinkers in ways that correspond more closely to scientific methodology. We must be careful, however, not to identify our reconstructed frames that draw heavily on the received body of scientific discourse, with the original frameworks proposed by pre-Qin thinkers. What we should be looking for is neither how modern practice validates the insights of pre-Qin thinkers, nor how pre-Qin thinkers anticipate modern scientific theory. The latter form of anachronistic theorizing may be satisfying for nationalist ideologists or for parlor-room discussion, but has no place in scientific discourse. We must acknowledge that we cannot stand on the same ground as our ancient forebears and look at the present. Instead we should look at the reframed ancient wisdom and ask whether or how this wisdom allows us to fill out or expand the frame of our scientific knowledge and how this new synthesis allows us better to interpret data, both ancient and modern. That is, we cannot deny our own interpretive agency based on our own training and experience, and we must apply the same empirical tests that we would use in judging contemporary research paradigms.