Tao Jiang on the Fa Tradition (法家) Yuri Pines (bio) Among the many strengths of Tao Jiang's magnum opus, Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early China, his analysis of the fa tradition (or the fa school, fajia 法家, often misleadingly dubbed Legalists)1 stands out as a major achievement. This achievement is immediately observable from the depth and seriousness with which the fa tradition is covered. Two out of the book's seven chapters (nine if we count Introduction and Conclusion) deal with fa thinkers: chapter 4 is dedicated to Shen Buhai 申不害 (d. 337 b.c.e.), [End Page 449] Shang Yang 商鞅 (d. 338 b.c.e.), and Shen Dao 慎到 (fourth century b.c.e.?); chapter 7 deals with Han Fei 韓非 (d. 233 b.c.e.). These chapters account for 112 pages out of the book's 476 (excluding bibliography and index), that is, almost a quarter of the text. This is dramatically more than the habitual allocation of less than ten percent to fa thinkers in other introductory-level studies of Chinese philosophy.2 This feature alone suffices to hail Jiang's book for its readiness to engage the fa tradition systematically and not as an intellectual aberration. The reasons for the habitual sidelining of fa thinkers (especially Shang Yang) in studies of early Chinese philosophy are not difficult to find. This sidelining started long ago, with its seeds traceable to the Han 漢 era (206/202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.). The fa thinkers were detested by imperial literati because of their abusive rhetoric (e.g., the derision of traditional moral values as "parasites" or "lice" [shi 虱] in the Book of Lord Shang), their advocacy of an excessively centralized and intrusive state apparatus, and most of all—their assault on fellow intellectuals, which was viewed as directly responsible for the infamous Qin 秦 biblioclasm of 213 b.c.e.3 One of China's most illustrious intellectuals, Su Shi 蘇軾 (1037–1101), succinctly summarized the literati attitude: "from the Han dynasty on, scholars have been ashamed to talk about Shang Yang."4 So negative was the reputation of the fa tradition throughout the imperial millennia that even those statesmen who admired Shang Yang's and Han Fei's contribution toward creating "a rich state and a strong army" (fuguo qiangbing 富國强兵) eschewed overt identification with fa thinkers.5 To this traditional dislike of Shang Yang and Han Fei, the twentieth century added a new sort of bias coming from the discipline of Chinese philosophy. Scholars engaged in this discipline may have been traumatized by Hegel's derisive remark about Confucius 孔子 (551–479 b.c.e.) as "only a man who has a certain amount of practical and worldly wisdom—one with whom there is no speculative philosophy."6 Insofar as fa texts (most notably the Book of Lord Shang associated with Shang Yang) epitomize "practical and worldly wisdom" and display little interest in "speculative philosophy," they are deemed irrelevant by philosophers. Not accidentally, studies of fa thinkers only very rarely appear in such major disciplinary journals as Philosophy East and West, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, and Dao. Against this backdrop, one can understand fully the achievement of Tao Jiang. Instead of sidelining the fa thinkers or reducing their role to that of practical statesmen rather than theorists, he engages their philosophy in earnest. He shows not only how much they were immersed in a dialog with earlier thinkers and texts, but also the depth of their impact in the late Warring States period, including on such major texts as Xunzi 荀子 and even Zhuangzi 莊子 (p. 283). Jiang particularly excels in demonstrating the philosophical depth behind the fa thinkers' insistence on the institutionalization of political power. Their advocacy of comprehensive bureaucratization [End Page 450] was not just a response to the practical need of improving the state's functioning. Rather, it reflected their understanding of "the uniqueness and independence of the political domain, especially the nature of political power, that is irreducible to personal virtues. Fajia thinkers were the most clear-eyed about this unique and sui generis nature of political power" (p. 237). Jiang explains this point further in his discussion of Shang Yang: Shang Yang's diagnosis of the nature of...
Read full abstract
Apr 4, 2023
Joel Hubick 
Open Access
