Play-Thing of the Times: Critical Review of the Reception of Daoism in the West

Abstract

As valid as the first sentence of the Daodejing may be to any follower of the Dao—the Dao that can be spoken of is not an eternal truth but always mere interpretation—as meaningful seems to be Sloterdijk’s pun on this Daoist key notion to the chronicler of the Dao reception in the West. For about 200 years, interpreters from the European cultural background have appropriated the Far Eastern import in amazingly different ways, following, on the one hand, and as was to be expected, mostly the prevailing zeitgeist. On the other hand, the reception, of course, was also influenced by the continuously developing knowledge in this field through translations and scholarly research by Sinologists. As will be shown below, an increase in knowledge about Daoism, however, did not necessarily lead to a deeper understanding of the matter. Yet this intellectual pitfall is built into the Daoist system of thought: Those who too cleverly try to probe into its teaching will be caught in the “fish trap” of words (Zhuangzi), the only “way” to the true Dao probably being silence. Hence, the unearthing of the true “Euro-Daoism” shall not and cannot be the object of this study. The point is rather to follow—somewhat in the vein of a “Derri-Daoism”—the “trace” that Daoism has left in Europe and in North America during the past 200 years. This might contribute to the understanding of the Dao at least inasmuch as to explain—especially regarding some striking cases—what Daoism is not. In the following, I shall first deal with the different waves and phases of the reception of Daoism in the West, taking into consideration the fields of literature, philosophy, and New Age thought. Finally, the reasons for the attractiveness of Daoism in the West shall be examined.