The unifying basis for Laoist thought: a concern for organic harmony.

(From Chapter Seven of Tao and Method)

Most readers sense a unity in the Tao Te Ching.  The main modern attempts to describe the single basis that gives this thought its unity are influenced by the foundationalist assumption that all valid thought needs a basis in some objective reality that can be defined in an absolute way: Here the main proposals are that Laoist thought is founded in observations about objective “nature,”[13] or that it is founded in some metaphysical absolute similar to the Hindu Brahman.[14]  The other main alternative is that it teaches the modern opposing counterpart of foundationalism, metaphysical relativism,[15] resulting in a skepticism toward all value judgments and all claims to truth.

These explanations contain assumptions contrary to the semantic structure of aphorisms presented in Chapter Six.  Aphorisms are not based on objective observations of “natural laws” (see p. 000).  They are not deductions from more fundamental principles that provide their epistemological and logical basis; they are rather self-contained, suggesting by themselves the basis on which they hope to persuade (see p. 000).  ‑This basis is generally some value-orientation “performed” by the aphorism, which has a positive and definite character.  One could of course imagine a body of aphorisms designed to inculcate skepticism: Such a body would need to contain aphorisms expressing directly opposing value orientations.  But, although there is an abundance of paradox in Laoist aphorisms, most commentators have been struck by a certain unidirectionality in these paradoxes,[16] suggesting a single positive value orientation.

I can most economically present my proposals about this unifying value orientation by first giving an abstract and synthetic account, and then showing how this account is supported by the dominant themes present in the text.

One fundamental phenomenon on which my proposals are based is the ability of human consciousness to create a mental space separated off from the physiological, psychogical, and experiential whole of which it is a part, and which is its concrete sustaining substrate.  This manifests itself, for example, in analytical and conceptual thought -- the ability to represent certain aspects of reality by means of ideas, which in turn enbable us to mentally organize our world in a deliberate way, to orient ourselves in this world, to conceptualize certain goals, and to manipulate reality to attain these goals.  Another illustration of this ability is the phenomenon of deception, which seems ultimately dependendent on an ability to formulate concepts that are separated off from our actual perceptions and experience of reality, and to create “artificial” appearances contrary to reality as actually experienced.  These abilities are partly rooted in a pervasive phenomenon in the psychology of perception: The tendency of all sensation and consciousness to split experience into a “foreground” that stands out as a focus of awareness, over against a taken-for-granted “background.”  The separate mental space we create for ourselves seems a development of what is foregrounded in perception, split off from what appears as background.

This phenomenon of individual psychology has an analogy in social life.  Individual identity is itself a social phenomenon, in that each person’s self-image is defined in relation to the social whole of which she is a part.  But here again human consciousness has the ability to split itself off, to ignore its taken-for-granted dependency on this sustaining social whole, and to see itself as an individual consciousness with an interest in asserting itself over against the whole.  The leadership roles that are part of many social organisms provide special opportunities for this kind of self assertion.  Such self-assertion is often partially supported by the social group as a whole, for whom some people appear to “stand out” as especially noteworthy and admirable against the relatively “ordinary” social whole considered here as background.

These tendencies are the basis for some things we nowadays value highly in life.  But for present purposes we have to consider also some of their negative aspects and results.  We need to try especially to define carefully what positive values might be damaged by the tendencies described, positive values that one might try to develop and cultivate instead.  I suggest three things that “separated” consciousness can be contrasted with: wholeness, concreteness, and a sustaining substrate.  Separated consciousness is one part existing in a whole human being, but tends to value its ability to stand out in contrast to this whole.  Separated consciousness is a “mental” reality, contrasted with the more concrete reality of the person as a psychological, biological, and physical being.  The whole of a person’s concrete being is a sustaining substrate for separated consciousness: Our ability to function well mentally, and find satisfaction in our lives, depends greatly on the healthy condition of the whole of our concrete being. 

What is especially noteworthy here is the fact that when separated consciousness gives overwhelming emphasis to its own specific value, and its aims and activity, it can easily damage the quality of the concrete whole that is its sustaining basis, and thus damage the quality of its own existence and its own ability to function well.  The specific damage done here seems to be the damage done to the organic goodness and the organic harmony of the whole concrete being.  “Organic” here refers to the fact that a human being is a complex whole, made up of elements and forces each of which has some spontaneous intrinsic tendency to coordinate itself with other elements in the whole.  Organic goodness is the kind of goodness that arises as a result of these tendencies, and organic harmony is the kind of unity that comes about through these tendencies.  What is organic to any given being can be contrasted the kind of goodness or order that comes about through an enforced subordination of some elements to others, or through the imposition of a conscious plan external to the elements themselves.  Separated consciousness is in a priveleged position to damage organic goodness and harmony: Although it is one element in a whole human being, it has the ability to dominate the whole and organize the whole around itself, its ideas, and its goals.

A human being simply is always a concrete whole; this is a fact that cannot be diminished or increased.  Organic harmony is however subject to degrees; one can have more of it or less of it.  While human beings, like all living organisms, have some intrinsic tendencies toward internal organic harmony, organic harmony is also something that can be deliberately fostered.  This cannot be done directly, by first devising a conceptual model of what organic harmony would mean, and then imposing it on one’s being.  But it can be done indirectly, by combating those tendencies (sometimes equally spontaneous) that tend to destroy it, and by providing conditions that support and foster spontaneous tendencies toward organic harmony already present in one’s being. 

One can gain some understanding of the possible goodness[17] involved in a state of highly developed organic harmony by extrapolation from more ordinary examples.  One can easily see, for example, that the quality of a person’s existence is damaged by severe cases of overstimulation and exhaustion, or by severe cases of psychological repression.  One can imagine how progress in ridding oneself of such psychologically damaging conditions would result in improvements in the quality of an individual human existence itself.  Imagine also making progress in gaining more and more of the specific kind of goodness involved here, until this goodness was present in a very superlative degree.  Imagining this might be difficult, not because we have no experience at all of this kind of goodness, but because the Western cultural heritage offers us few models or ideas about organic harmony as something one might want to achieve to a very high degree, for its own sake.  It tends to have a relatively low and subservient place in our list of priorities. 

There is also a further intrinsic difficulty, however, in imagining organic harmony in its perfection: Most models of perfection are models in which some quality clearly stands out to capture our attention against a background of ordinariness.  By comparison the greatness one would feel in great organic harmony would be somewhat mysterious, in that one could feel the greatness, but could not locate this greatness in the usual way by identifying it with some one or few attention getting element(s).  (The closest Western analogy here might be the beauty of some classic Greek statues, which consists in the perfect proportioning and harmony of the parts, rather than in any one outstanding beautiful feature.)

My claim is that this description of organic harmony as a good best explains the particular combination of themes that we find in Laoist aphorisms.  Let me begin with aphorisms dealing with the Laoist equivalent of Mencian “virtue” -- those that attack certain models of what it means to be a great human being, and propose other models instead.  If my thesis is correct, Laoist thought on this subject is based on the fact that any given human personality has a tendency to develop in such a way that the various qualities making up the personality form a spontaneously integrated and harmonious whole.  Laoists are particularly sensitive to certain other human tendencies that damage this organic integration.  One important negative tendency here is the tendency of separated consciousness to take impressing others as a primary goal.  Thus it will give special emphasis to fostering those individual qualities that are socially impressive, and to repressing those qualities that appear negligible or negative in a given social environment.  Another negative tendency is the tendency of separated consciousness to develop conceptually formulated ideals, and to think of “becoming good” as a matter of shaping one’s being and conduct according to these conceptual ideals.  Both these tendencies will typically lead to a development of personality that is “unbalanced” from the point of view of one who takes as her norm an organic balance and integration of qualities rising from within.  They will also lead to a certain kind of permanent internal strain, as consciousness has to continually work against the tendency of some repressed instincts and elements of the personality to assert and integrate themselves into the whole. 

On the present thesis, these two tendencies are the main targets of Laoist aphorisms on this subject.  This group of aphorisms is motivated by a value orientation in which organic harmony is the primary value, and some of them suggest ways in which organic harmony can be fostered.  My argument for this thesis is that (1) it best explains the dominant themes (the most commonly repeated themes) in Laoist aphorisms on this subject.  (2) It best explains the particular combination of themes we find here.  And (3) it does justice to certain ideas other commentators have emphasized, while overcoming some of their shortcomings, especially the internal contradictions that appear in Laoist thought in other interpretations.  I will list my arguments here, citing evidence in footnotes except where only one passage is involved, or references to entries in the Topical Glossary (marked with asterisks), beginning p. 000.

This thesis explains the strong Laoist attack on the tendency to admire and cultivate impressive Appearances*; Laoist thought characterizes such appearances as the result of artificial attempts to impress others (see Self-promotion*), that typically lack real substance.  Real substance has an important “natural” (i.e. organic) element, not able to be produced by deliberate conscious planning and effort.  This thesis explains the attention Laoists give to quiet (3[67:]2) and subtle (44[41]:3) virtues, and the advice to cultivate even qualities most people would consider “disgraceful”; this is necessary in order to counter the tendency of separated consciousness to emphasize those qualities that‑ impress others, and to cultivate instead a more organic wholeness by reintegrating those aspects of personality that get repressed in this process; a highly developed reintegration makes for a great person, “the Pattern for the World” (17[28]:1).

This thesis explains the continuity between Laoist values and certain commonly admired “quiet” virtues, but also the apparently radical Laoist attack on conventional values in general, and the associated habit of defining Laoist values in ironic or negative terms; organic harmony is by nature something that‑ will never stand out as something specially good to ordinary consciousness, and so its goodness cannot be described in positive terms taken from language shaped by conventional usage.  To a conventional mentality t‑hat pays attention to what stands out, the goodness of organic harmony will appear “Empty,” “Nothing.”[18]  But a highly developed internal organic harmony will be experienced by its possessor as a state of being that is very sustaining and satisfying.  Hence the Laoist contrast between what impresses others and endlessly “useful”[19] Nothing.  The permanent internal strain resulting from conscious development in opposition to organic harmony explains why Laoists characterize cultivation of fine appearances as negative wei/”working” (11[38]:1).  A state of organic harmony lacks this kind of strain, and so can be characterized as “not doing” (25[48]:1-2) and as “Still” (5[45]:1-5).  It has a self-sustaining quality and so feels more “lasting” (10[7]:1) than those states that require constant internal discipline motivated by external goals.  (This is connected with the theme of an hypostatized internally nourishing “Mother,” discussed in Chapter Nine [p. 000]).

This thesis explains above all why Laoists can express such radical skepticism of conventional values, and apparently advocate being “natural” (14[23]:1), and at the same time advocate sustained and intensive efforts at self-cultivation[20] aimed at achieving high ideals.  Although organic harmony bears some resemblance to what we ordinarily call “being natural,” organic harmony cannot be identified with whatever happens through following just any spontaneous impulses.  The tendencies destructive of organic harmony described above are as “spontaneous” and universal as the tendencies that foster organic harmony.[21]  And organic harmony is something one have more or less of, and can try to foster in oneself through creating conditions that bring it about to a higher degree.  Perfect organic harmony is a “high excellence” (7[8]:1) that is “natural” and at the same time goes radically contrary to the tendency of human beings and human societies to admire most those ideals developed by separated consciousness.

This explanation can be extended to explain the dominant Laoist themes in those aphorisms whose target is the tendency of shih toward self-promotion*, “contending*” with others for social status.  The organic reality that is involved here is social rather than individual: A society also has a certain organic order to it, and the worth of individuals is partly measured by the place of each in this organic whole and their contribution to it.  Certain individuals might “shine” as leaders in this organic social order (4[22]:5), but for one who values the organic most highly this must always be because of the genuine contribution such an individual makes to the organic social whole, not through any direct self-assertive efforts to stand out.  Such “artificial” standing out is precisely what is destructive of organic social harmony.  Seen against the normative horizon of an organically ordered whole, deliberatly self-assertive and boastful self-promotion is an “excess” that has no solid grounding in “things” (1[24]:1-4)  This analysis explains why Laoists can both strongly attack deliberate and direct attempts to shine socially, and also take it as their ambition to become leaders of their society.[22]

This analysis can also be extended to Laoist thought about gaining true knowledge.  The “organic organization” relevant here is that of multidimensional human experience involving the whole person, facing ever new and uniquely configured situations.  This stands in contrast to the mode of knowledge characteristic of separated consciousness, in which reality is grasped through the medium of relatively fixed analytical concepts.  The reality (the Lebenswelt) perceived by holistic human experience is a complex but organically organized and rich totality whose character is always shifting and taking on unique configurations.  By contrast, the reality we grasp by concepts is relatively thin and abstract.  And the fixed set of concepts and value terms we usually employ will tend to bias our perception so that we will fail to appreciate certain kinds of goodness that we might otherwise perceive in the world.  Perceiving reality as an organic whole requires that we maintain an organic harmony within ourselves, rather than letting our beings be dominated by separated consciousness.  The deeper the organic harmony we attain within ourselves, the deeper will be our perception of organic order and goodness in the world.  Allowing our awareness to be dominated by conceptual thought damages the quality of our consciousness, and so the quality of the Lebenswelt we perceive (see Understanding*).  This analysis explains why Laoists can mount a radical attack on the use of value terms (“names*”), and still claim to possess a superior evaluative understanding of reality that is the basis for certain obvious value judgments they make themselves.

One can also speak of an organic harmony on a psychological and physiological level.  What damages organic harmony on this level is alignment around some external stimulus or goal, as for example prolonged excitement, prolonged work under pressure to acheive a certain goal, or anxiety caused by perceived threats to something one values very highly (a job, social status, self-image, etc.)  These are all examples where something that is foregrounded in one’s attention causes an unbalanced internal alignment that damages the the healthy and organic harmony of our psychological and physiological being that is the necessary sustaining substrate of consciousness.[23]  Laoists aim to reduce the stress caused by external stimulation and attachments.  But the ultimate goal here is not (as in early Hinduism and Buddhism) the achievement of internal freedom for the spirit through detachment, but a kind of “higher hedonism,” the ability to find deep and subtle satisfaction in the simple things of life  (contentment in what satisfies one’s internal “belly,” in contrast to what catches one’s eye [21[12]:2]).

Finally, we can apply this analysis to Laoist thought about ruling well.  The main assumption here is that the individual members of long standing social groups also have a spontaneous tendency to define and conduct themselves in a manner harmonious with the characteristics and conduct of other group members.  There thus develops a kind of goodness and order that is relatively unique and organic to any given social group.   Laoists assume (with all their contemporaries we know about) that a ruler plays a central role in the organic harmony of any organized society, both as a unifying focus of allegiance[24] and as someone who provides the conditions that‑ maintain and foster this social harmony.[25]  However they also perceive the ruler as the primary potential threat to organic harmony.  Rulers damage the organic harmony of the society when they insist on overt dramatization of the difference between themselves and their subjects, fostering a polarization between themselves and the rest of society.  Seen against the normative horizon of an organically ordered society, the dominating presence of such a ruler will appear a foreign intrusion.  This will be more true, the more the ruler himself allows his perspective to be dominated by a separated consciousness: valuing qualities and appearances that make him stand out as impressive* and awesome, letting his leadership style be governed by strict* and sharply conceptualized norms, and emphasizing the importance of human agency in bringing about improvements* in the world.  One important manifestation of his foreignness will be the fact that the people (who have an instinctive feeling for the unique organic order proper to their society) will feel him as a burden, and so will resent‑ him and refuse him their allegiance and cooperation (54[17]:1).  Emphatic and egotistic assertion of his personal superiority will also set a tone encouraging others to compete (“contend*”) with him and with each other for dominance (57[68]:2).

The contrasting Laoist ideal is not an anarchist society without a leader, nor a society in which the ruler literally does nothing.  On the negative side, the ideal Laoist ruler or administrator/manager is one who avoids or minimizes any overt dramatization of the difference between himself and his subjects.  Organic social harmony depends on people identifying with and taking pride in the social units to which they belong; this is weakened when the admiration of group members is directed toward someone outside the group, and even more weakened when fear of power intrusions from outside the group exerts a strong influence on group life.  The ideal ruler will also not focus on direct enforcement of fixed standards of right and wrong.  He will be sensitive to the unique and shifting conditions in any social group, and will flexibly pursue policies designed to foster the kind of organic harmony appropriate to each unique situation.[26]  He will perform his necessary administrative work in such a way that it blends in as unobtrusively as possible with the ongoing processes of the society (54[17]:3).  If he has to take action in opposition to some of his subjects, he will try to do so in a way that is as non-confrontational as possible.[27]  He will resort to physical violence only very reluctantly and as a last resort.[28]

The main positive ideal the ruler should strive to attain is that he should represent in his person and in his policies the organic spirit of the society in its most ideal form (60[49]:1).  In this case the people will recognize in him the same goodness they instinctively feel in their group life.  This will be the source of his Te/charisma, and it will feel “natural” to the people to give him their allegiance and cooperation (55[66]:1).  He will simply be a symbolic focus for their spontaneous attachment to the spirit of their own group.

All this explains why Laoists can express strong criticism of conventional assumptions that rulers should aim for “great” achievements and project a powerful and majestic image, and why at the same time they can take as their ambition becoming spiritual heir of the ‑Chou Emperor as Norm for the World.

Despite Laoist distaste for oppositional intrusion on the part of the ruler, there is one set of tendencies they perceive in their society that they think must be strongly opposed, because these tendencies are disruptive of organic harmony.  Among these are especially several tendencies others undoubtedly looked upon as great social improvements*: tendencies toward emphasizing instrumental and conceptual rationality both in the technological/economic sphere and in political/legal sphere; the growth and encouragement of individual ambition; and attempts to make Confucian virtues the official norm for all.  Advocating active intrusion in opposition to these tendencies is not an inconsistent contradiction of Laoist strictures against the intrusive (wei/”working”) ruler.  Such opposition shows rather a consistent devotion to the central value of organic harmony.

The ideal of organic harmony as applied to the social and political order is an ideal that other commentators have remarked on as a common concern among ancient Chinese generally.  This is especially true of Joseph Needham,[29] who also quotes the following interesting passage from Marcel Granet:

People like to talk about the gregarious instinct of the Chinese, and to attribute to them an anarchic temperament.  In fact, their spirit of associativeness, and their individualism, are rustic and peasant qualities.  Their idea of Order derives from a healthy country feeling for good understanding...This feeling, wounded by excessive administrative intrusions, equalitarian constraints, or abstract rules and regulations, always rested...upon a kind of passion for autonomy, and upon a need, no less strong, for comradeship and friendship.  State, Dogma, Law, were powerless as compared with Order.  Order was conceived as a Peace which no abstract forms of obedience could establish, no abstract reasoning impose.  To make this Peace reign everywhere, a taste for conciliation was necessary, involving an acute sense of compromise, spontaneous solidarities, and free hierarchies.[30]

Granet’s view that the concern for organic harmony stems from a “rustic and peasant” worldview seems one quite likely partial explanation of the cultural origins of Laoism.

*

One further way of summing up the kind of goodness that unifies and motivates Laoist practical wisdom is by comparing it with the modern concern for the “quality of the environment.”  Many of our specific modern problems seem to have to do with the way that our narrow focus on certain apparently good individual aims causes us to ignore th‑e way that pursuing these individual aims damages the environment ‑on which the quality of our lives and even our productivity depends.  The Tao Te Ching does not express direct concern for the “natural environment” as we understand it: trees, rivers, wildlife, and so on.[31]  But consider other kinds of “environment.”

A personality is an environment for the various virtues and good qualities that go to make up the personality.  Western tradition typically emphasizes choosing rightly which particular virtues to develop.  But we can also see that being a good person does not only mean having some collection of individual good qualities.  In the concrete, we will generally perceive a given collection of good qualities to be more good if the qualities are highly integrated with each other, harmonious, and balanced.  “Balance” and internal harmony are things we can perceive as good for their own sake, although they are not usually given much priority in the Western hierarchy of goods.  Laoism makes this the highest good.  Harmonious balance in a personality is what makes that personality a high quality “environment” for individual virtues.

Similarly, a state of mind is a physical/psychological “environment” in which particular experiences occur.  We normally pay more attention to which individual experiences occur, preferring more meaningful and more “intense” individual experiences.  But we can see that, all other things being equal, experiences that occur in a high quality physiological and psychological environment have a greater richness of meaning than those that occur when we are physically exhausted or psychologically agitated.

Our total mental state and our total relation to reality  also constitute an environment in which understanding occurs.  We can see that excessive reliance on conceptual knowledge can give a person a certain abstract and stilted relation to the world, damaging the general mental environment in which perceptions of the world occur.  All other things being equal, our perceptions of and relation to the world will be of higher quality when they take place in an overall mental environment that involves our full being.

Finally, we can consider the quality of the social environment.  We tend to think most about the contents of public policy and social conduct, and so focus on whether we think the authorities and/or the people are acting according to correct moral principles.  But we can recognize also that a leader’s narrow focus on the correctness of her policies, and emphasis on her own authority, can cause her to ignore the effect that her style of implementing these policies has on the general atmosphere in the group, as a social atmosphere in which policies are realized.  All other things being equal, group life and interactions are of a higher quality the more they take place in a social environment characterized by organic harmony.

*

My argument is that organic goodness and harmony is a specific kind of goodness that is the unifying basis for the Laoist worldview.  But Laoist sayings do not give us a system of ideas or theories that explicitly lay out for us what organic harmony consists in.  This is because Laoists were not interested in a conceptual and theoretical elaboration of their ideal such as I am attempting here.  The polemic aphorisms “peform” a concern for organic harmony in their selection of targets and images.  I will show in Chapters Eight through Ten that Laoists also engaged in self-cultivation practices aimed at developing personal qualities (like Stillness and Oneness) that foster organic harmony within, and other qualities like Softness that make for a leadership style fostering organic harmony in the society.

On the above account, speaking in general, Laoist advice is good advice, at least in some contexts, because the perspective it urges is motivated by concern for something good and deserving of respect, organic harmony.  The goodness of organic harmony is the ultimate unifying subject matter (die Sach) which Laoist sayings call to our attention to and try to convert us to.

Organic harmony is however a good, among many possible goods.  How important a good it is, and what priority it deserves with respect to other goods, ‑is something that might vary according to varying cultural contexts.  Discussing how important‑ this good is in our own cultural context is a matter beyond the scope of this book.

Footnotes