Abstract
In recent decades, many researchers set out to draw links between Western anarchism and ancient Chinese Daoism. The present work aims at adding to this ongoing debate by answering the question of whether the Guodian Laozi’s 郭店老子 sayings can be labelled as “anarchism.” It defends the claim that the text endorses a unique kind of anarchist theory based on a distinctive theory of political authority grounded in Daoist moral commitments. To do so, this essay first offers an overview of the scholarly debate surrounding this topic. Second, it provides an account of the necessary and sufficient feature any theory must secure in order to be argued to be anarchist, as well as a framework that underlines potential differences between various anarchist theories. Third, a rigorous textual analysis of the Guodian Laozi is conducted to extrapolate its political advice, before analyzing it in light of the anarchist framework mentioned above. This essay concludes with an assessment of several objections that may be raised against its claims.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Ames, Roger T. 1983. “Is Political Taoism Anarchism?” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 10: 27–47.
Ames, Roger T., and David Hall. 2003. Daodejing—“Making This Life Significant”: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bender, Frederic L. 1983. “Taoism and Western Anarchism.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 10: 5–26.
Casey, Gerard. 2012. Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chen, Guying. 2020. The Annotated Critical Laozi: With Contemporary Explication and Traditional Commentary. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Clark, John P. 1983. “On Taoism and Politics.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 10: 65–88.
Creel, Herrlee G. 1970. What is Taoism?: And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
______. 1974. Shen Pu-Hai: A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dagger, Richard. 2000. “Philosophical Anarchism and Its Fallacies: A Review Essay.” Law and Philosophy 19: 391–406.
Erkes, Eduard. 1945. “Ho-Shang-Kung’s Commentary on the Lao-Tse.” Artibus Asiae 8.2–4: 121–196.
Feldt, Alex. 2010. “Governing Through the Dao: A Non-Anarchistic Interpretation of the Laozi.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 9.3: 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-010-9176-z.
Flavel, Sarah, and Brad Hall. 2020. “State Maternalism: Rethinking Anarchist Readings of the Daodejing.” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 19.3: 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-020-09731-2.
Graham, Angus C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China. La Salle: Open Court.
Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.
______. 2020. “Daoism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/daoism/ (last accessed in April 2021).
Hart, Herbert L. A. 1955. “Are There Any Natural Rights?” The Philosophical Review 64.2: 175–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182586.
Hendrischke, Barbara. 2019. “Daoist Philosophy as Viewed from the Guodian Manuscripts.” In Dao Companion to the Excavated Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts, edited by Shirley Chan. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Henricks, Robert G. 2000. Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian. New York: Columbia University Press.
Huemer, Michael. 2013. The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Ivanhoe, Philip J., and Bryan W. Van Norden. 2001. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Jiang, Tao. 2021. Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early China: Contestation of Humaneness, Justice, and Personal Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kirkland, Russell. 2002. “The History of Taoism: A New Outline.” Journal of Chinese Religions 30.1: 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1179/073776902804760257.
Lau, Din Cheuk. 1964. Tao Te Ching. New York: Penguin.
Levitov, Alex. 2016. “Normative Legitimacy and the State.” Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.131 (last accessed in April 2021).
Li, Cunshan. 2000. “Early Daoist and Confucian Relations as Seen from the Guodian Chu Slips.” Contemporary Chinese Thought 32.2: 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971467.2001.11735782.
Littlejohn, Ronnie. 2019. “Wu-wei.” In International Encyclopedia of Ethics, edited by Hugh LaFollette. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee942. (last accessed in November 2022).
Liu, Xiaogan. 2015. “Laozi’s Philosophy: Textual and Conceptual Analyses.” In Dao Companion to Daoist Philosophy, edited by Xiaogan Liu. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lynn, Richard John. 1999. The Classic of the Way and Virtue: A New Translation of the Tao-Te Ching of Laozi as Interpreted by Wang Bi. New York: Columbia University Press.
Martin, Rex. 1975. “Two Models for Justifying Political Authority.” Ethics 86.1: 70–75.
McLaughlin, Paul. 2007. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Aldershot: Ashgate.
______. 2010. “In Defence of Philosophical Anarchism.” In Anarchism and Moral Philosophy, edited by Benjamin Franks and Matthew Wilson. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Moeller, Hans-Georg. 2015. “Basic Aspects of Daoist Philosophy.” International Communication of Chinese Culture 2.2: 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-015-0019-9.
Rapp, John A. 2012. Daoism and Anarchism: Critiques of State Autonomy in Ancient and Modern China. London and New York: Continuum.
Roberts, Moss. 2001. Dao De Jing: The Book of the Way. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
______. 1996. “Philosophical Anarchism.” In For and Against the State: New Philosophical Readings, edited by John T. Sanders and Jan Narveson. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
______. 1999. “Justification and Legitimacy.” Ethics 109.4: 739–771. https://doi.org/10.1086/233944.
Valentini, Laura. 2012. “Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.” Philosophy Compass 7.9: 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00500.x.
Vincent, Andrew. 2010. Modern Political Ideologies. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Wagner, Rudolf G. 2003. A Chinese Reading of the Daodejing: Wang Bi’s Commentary on the Laozi with Critical Text and Translation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Waley, Arthur. 1934. In Way and Its Power: Tao Te Ching and Its Place in Chinese Thought. London: Allen & Unwin.
Wendt, Fabian. 2020. “Against Philosophical Anarchism.” Law and Philosophy 39: 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-020-09377-4.
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1998. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zhang, Ellen Y. 2015. “Weapons are Nothing but Ominous Instruments: The Daodejing’s View on War and Peace.” In Chinese Just War Ethics: Origin, Development, and Dissent, edited by Ping-cheung Lo and Sumner B. Twiss. London and New York: Routledge.
Zhang, Yuan, and Douglas L. Berger. 2023. “Wu Wei.” In Key Concepts in World Philosophies: A Toolkit for Philosophers, edited by Sarah Flavel and Chiara Robbiano. London, New York, and Dublin: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Agustoni, M.B. The Laozi and Anarchism. Dao 22, 89–116 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-022-09868-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-022-09868-2