2/25/2015

Why We Should Study Chinas Machiavelli | The Diplomat

Why We Should Study China's Machiavelli

The similarities and differences between Niccolo
Machiavelli and Han Feizi are illuminating.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
January 22, 2015

Ryan Mitchell wrote a fascinating piece for The Diplomat entitled Is

Chinas Machiavelli Now its Most Important Philosopher?, outlining
the role the ancient philosopher Han Feizi plays in shaping President
Xi Jinpings political agenda. For example, Xi Jinping quoted Han
Feizis dictum when those who uphold the law are strong, the state is
strong. When they are weak, the state is weak to justify his tough
anti-corruption campaign and his allegedly more authoritarian style of
government. Xi Jinpings quote of Han Feizi was subsequently
reprinted thousands of times in state-owned and party-controlled
media outlets.
Xis citation of Han Feizi is an instance of ruling political men relying on
and defending their actions per the authority of recognized political
thinkers. It is curious to me the way in which public figures use
philosophical elites to empower and elevate, or at least attempt to
justify, controversial praxis and principle. It provides them with a
mantle of legitimacy by continuing an apparent tradition already
established a long time ago. Mitchell also seems to indicate that Han
Feizis ambiguous reputation is analogous to the controversial rap on
Machiavelli in the West.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/why-we-should-study-chinas-machiavelli/?allpages=yes&print=yes

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

1/2

2/25/2015

Why We Should Study Chinas Machiavelli | The Diplomat

What I found interesting to ponder over is the public reaction if a European or American president cited Machiavelli in a
speech (e.g., Politics have no relations to morals, or Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they
take revenge for slight injuries for heavy ones they cannot.). Of course, there are ontological and philosophical differences
between Machiavelli and Han Feizi and their respective philosophies, and any quote, by definition, is taken out of context,
which is especially problematic for philosophical texts.
However, what makes the comparison to Machiavelli more interesting is not so much the obvious similarities in the
authoritarian streak of both philosophers and their amoral counsel on how rulers ought to run their affairs (by the way, I
strongly suspect that Machiavellis core political philosophy is buried in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy
rather than the Prince), but in how the fundamentals underlying their political thought have evidently much more in common
than the Italian thinker has with other great European philosophers. This makes Han Feizis work more European, and
Machiavellis philosophy more Chinese.
Plato, for example, argues in his Republic that the best regime happens by chance, the unlikely coming together of political
philosophy and political power. This is based on the ancient Greek understanding of human nature and in a sense cautions
against social engineering or the attempt to make utopia, the ideal state, a reality. However, Machiavelli broke with this
tradition publicly by pronouncing that chance (fortuna) can be influenced: For my part I consider that it is better to be
adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use
her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more
coldly.
Beating and ill-using chance is the foundation of any radical political reform and has openly been part of Chinese political
tradition if one studies writings from Han Feizi to Mao Zedong. The big question to ask is what is in the water in China that
allows a world leader to cite an evidently infamous or, at least, somewhat disreputable source to defend authoritarian policy?
I believe Mitchells essay calls for a greater understanding of Han Feizi and his relative status in the popular and pundit
thinking in China. Theres an interesting study there regarding the use of philosophical (and/or ancient) intellectual reputation
to defend political behavior and the perhaps unique cultural applications of this practice in China regarding Han Feizi.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/why-we-should-study-chinas-machiavelli/?allpages=yes&print=yes

2/2