Taipei First Girls’ High School teacher Alice Ou (區桂芝), who last year drew attention for criticizing Taiwan’s “shameless” academic curriculum, has now posed the question: “What is freedom? Freedom in the West means personal freedom and freedom of speech, while in China, it is portrayed in the ancient Chinese Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi’s (莊子) ‘A Happy Excursion’ (逍遙遊),” the first chapter of his eponymous book. Her assertion seems to be that Chinese have long had personal freedom and freedom of speech akin to that of the West since Zhuang’s time in the 4th century BC.
It is hard to know if Zhuang, 2,400 years ago, had the kind of freedom Ou described. A search for an answer in his book is complex. Over time, the book has been annotated by countless academics, with interpretations often diverging from the modern understanding of freedom.
Although the early “inner chapters” of the Zhuangzi are generally considered to be written by Zhuang himself, the text never mentions the word freedom. Even in the most generous interpretation of the chapter, where the act of wandering is considered as an expression of freedom, those who equate wandering with freedom fail to distinguish between the concepts.
Zhuang, who lived through the Warring States period, could not have been free. It was his lack of freedom that prompted his book, in which he expressed his dream to wander freely.
The period was marked with warfare and suffering, so much so that Zhuang aspired to overcome the confinements of his surroundings, but only on a spiritual level. How could he have felt free?
Had Zhuang really spoken of freedom, why have the Chinese remained confined for thousands of years? Today, under the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party, personal freedom and freedom of speech are still out of reach.
The book Zhuangzi remained obscure for several centuries before gaining popularity during the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties (220 AD to 589 AD). This resurgence was due to China’s fragmented state post Qin Dynasty unification in 221 BC, a period marked by greed, warfare and massacres between powers.
In times of chaos, freedom of speech was momentarily revived to rival Confucian orthodoxy, but this revival was limited to a small group of individuals such as Ji Kang (嵇康) and Ruan Ji (阮籍), known collectively as the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove (竹林七賢), who gathered in bamboo forests and drank, indulged, disrobed and expressed defiance to orthodoxy. Yet, even this brief freedom was brutally suppressed.
When Ou mentions the Chinese history behind freedom, the most concrete execution of this would be to retreat into secluded woods. Escaping worldly constraints was the altogether Confucian, Buddhist and Taoist way Chinese intellectuals sought spiritual transcendence. As long as they did not rebel, these recluses could enjoy a life unconcerned with the state of the nation, and this contributed to the flourishing of Chinese pastoral literature and landscape painting.
The works of artists Tao Yuan-ming (陶淵明), Wang Wei (王維) and Su Dongpo (蘇東坡) portrayed the attempts of Chinese intellectuals under imperial authoritarianism to claim spiritual freedom.
However, that freedom existed only on the mental and spiritual levels.
Chinese freedom is clearly not the same as Western civic freedom. Zhuang’s way of freedom could even be seen as the precursor of self-deception. The freedom of Chinese intellectuals could never lead to the fight for human rights and freedom of speech as seen in the West. Thousands of years of history have numbed the Chinese in their approach to achieving things only on a spiritual level, solidifying a national character that wills to prefer servitude.
Chen Ching-kuen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Wang Yun-fei
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS