The title chosen for this research is “An investigation of whether extremism led to the decline of legalism during the warring states period of Ancient China” Legalism, by and large heavily relied on a centralized system that contravened previous empires (Zhou, Shang, and Xia) governed by the Confucian and Taoist school of thought. To this end, the emperor was the ultimate holder of power and the public now held peripheral positions in these relations. Continual marginalization of the people was bound to stir up resistance amongst them. The process of marginalizing the populace may have contributed to the extremist nature of Legalist rule. The research will therefore look into the relationship between this extremism and how it may have led to the decline of legalism.
Numerous extremist governments tend to oppress their citizens so much so that this eventually leads to a breaking point. The research will focus on the citizens who lived during the Legalism era in the warring period and whether they had also been pushed to the edge by these excesses. Scholars have argued that the Qin dynasty did not last as long as it would have to owe to the very nature of legalistic rule. Rulers were autocratic and laws were cruel. Noblemen and law enforcers became nothing more than self-seekers. These can all be viewed as forms of extremist rule. The paper will examine various depictions of such rule.
Thesis Statement
The research will argue that ‘Intolerance of legalism to different ideas, rigidity of punishment and its divisive nature were extremist traits that led to the decline of legalism in the warring states period
Han Feizi and Li Si (a prime minister in the legalist era) stubbornly refused to accept other ideas or doctrines. Even though part of their principles was borrowed from Confucian thought especially the part about man being inherently evil, they rejected progressive ideas propagated by other philosophers or rulers. For instance, although Confucian scholars believed that man was selfish, they also affirmed that man could be trained to shed off that evil nature so that he could be less self-serving through moral teachings. Legalists instead claimed that this evil nature was irremovable and that only strong laws were the guarantor of order. There was no room left for exceptions as these laws were seen as standards for governing the people. Unfortunately, the complexity of these laws alienated the populace and led to their discontentment. It was an almost impossible task to try and create laws that would make room for every circumstance. Trying to do so only leads to complexity and unpredictability which were very prevalent in the Legalist era. Such rigid application of law is a disturbing but common trait in extremist governance. Consequently, one can assert that this society was indeed extreme.
Matters were further compounded by the fact that laws were supposed to be implemented fully and forcefully. Too much emphasis was given to reward in comparison to punishment. Although most adherents to this perspective felt that it was necessary to manipulate both punishment and reward in order to get what one wanted, there was undue attention given to punishment. This may have led to perceptions of injustice by the populace and hence the need to revolt. Indeed many scholars have asserted that such an approach was too simplistic. It was assumed that so long as punishment and reward were administered consistently then citizens would be motivated to avoid penalties and receive rewards. However, it had been forgotten that sometimes some mistakes were unavoidable and that punishing such individuals was inconsiderate or even unjust; a key element in many extreme governments. The logic behind the use of excessive punishments was also extreme as it was argued that people could be motivated to avoid committing major offenses if they saw that relatively minor ones drew harsh penalties. However, this did not work at all since the opposite occurred. The law kept getting crueler as social and political landscapes changed. When peasant rebellions arose, legalist leader Zhao Ghao resorted to even harsher punishments; an aspect that fueled the crisis even further. Noblemen who had been expedited from the government now joined the peasant revolutions and this caused intense failure in wars against the government. Clearly, the overuse of punishments was not working for Legalist rulers.
Legalism was also extreme in the sense that it caused too many divisions. The basic foundation for Legalism was the belief in man’s inherent evil. Philosopher Han Feizi asserted that man naturally looks out for his own interests and unless he was compelled to act otherwise, it would be unrealistic to expect him to care for society. Therefore such legalists believed that through the use of coercion, it would be possible to exercise control over man. Rulers could manipulate the selfish nature of the ruled to stay in power. In reality, such extreme values only led to mistrust amongst the populace. Ministers had spies that would check on their peers as well as the masses. Informants were given too much precedence and even those who happen to know wrong but failed to report it would be punished. Manipulation was a key element in the success of the Legalist rule. However, not all situations or persons could be manipulated and the people became increasingly divided. This is an important contributor to the failure of Legalism. Divisions were not prevalent in the larger society; they were also common internally. In fact, Emperor Hu Hai found himself in a political crisis because his political rivals emanated from within. This was the reason why he executed his siblings who were a threat to ultimate power. On top of the latter, it also became clear that members of the court no longer looked out for the interest of the state or the Emperor; they became nothing more than self-seekers. Peasant rebellions were now a reality and this further divided the nation.
References
Watson, Burton. Basic Writings: Han Fei. Columbia: Columbia University press, 1996
Watson, Burton. Basic writings of Mo Tzu, Han Fei Tzu and Hsun Tzu. London: Penguin, 1967
Shouyi, Bai. An outlined history of China. Beijing: Foreign Language publishers, 1982
Fu, Zhengyuan. China’s legalists: Earliest totalitarians. London: M Sharpe Publishers, 1996
Peerenboom, Richard. Review of totalitarian law. Politics review journal 59.3(1997): 597
Wang, Yanping & Head, John. Law codes in dynastic China. Durham: North Carolina Academy press, 2005
Winston, Kenneth. Internal morality of Chinese legalism. Singapore legal studies journal 33.4(2005): 146
Schwartz, Benjamin. Thought in Ancient China. MA: Belknap, 1985
Creel, Howard. Totalitarianism of legalists. Chicago: Chicago university press, 1953
Qian, Sima. Records of the grand historian. NY: University of Columbia Press, 1993