Sophia

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 257–282 | Cite as

The Limitations of Ritual Propriety: Ritual and Language in Xúnzǐ and Zhuāngzǐ

Article

Abstract

This essay examines the theory of ritual propriety presented in the Xúnzǐ and criticisms of Xunzi-like views found in the classical Daoist anthology Zhuāngzǐ. To highlight the respects in which the Zhuāngzǐ can be read as posing a critical response to a Xunzian view of ritual propriety, the essay juxtaposes the two texts' views of language, since Xunzi's theory of ritual propriety is intertwined with his theory of language. I argue that a Zhuangist critique of the presuppositions of Xunzi's stance on language also undermines his stance on ritual propriety. Xunzi contends that state promulgation of anelaborate code of ritual propriety is a key to good social order (zhi) and that state regulation of language is a key to smooth communication and thus also good order. The Zhuāngzǐ provides grounds for doubting both contentions. Claiming that ritual propriety causally produces social order is analogous to claiming that grammar causally produces smooth linguistic communication, when in fact it is more likely our ability to communicate that allows us to develop shared rules of grammar. Humans have fundamental social and communicative capacities that undergird our abilities to speak a language or engage in shared ritual performances. It is these more fundamental capacities, not their manifestation in a particular system of grammar or ritual norms, that provide the root explanation of our ability to communicate or to live together harmoniously. The Xunzi-Zhuangzi dialectic suggests that ritual is indispensable, but normatively justified rituals will be less rigid, less comprehensive, less fastidious, and more spontaneous than a Xunzian theorist would allow.

Keywords

Xúnzǐ Zhuāngzǐ Ritual Rectification of names Confucianism Daoism 

References

  1. Bell, C. (1992). Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical Sociology. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, Donald. [1994] 2005. ‘The Social Aspect of Language.’ In Truth, Language, and History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–25.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, Donald. [1986] 2005. ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.’ In Truth, Language, and History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89–107.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, Donald. [1984] 2001. ‘Communication and Convention.’ In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 265–80.Google Scholar
  8. Durkheim, Emile. [1912] 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. K. Fields, tr. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fingarette, H. (1972). Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, C. (2011). Knowledge and Error in Early Chinese Thought. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 10(2), 127–148.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, C. (2009a). Action and Agency in Early Chinese Thought. Journal of Chinese Philosophy and Culture, 5, 217–239.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, C. (2009b). Skepticism and Value in the Zhuangzi. International Philosophical Quarterly, 49(4), 439–457.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, C. (2006). Zhuangzi, Xunzi, and the Paradoxical Nature of Education. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 33(4), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, Chris. [2005] 2011. ‘Mohist Canons.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), E. Zalta, ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/mohist-canons/.
  15. Gennep, Arnold Van. 1960. The Rites of Passage. M. Vizedom and G. Caffee, tr. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, A. C. (1989). Disputers of the Tao. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, A. C. (1981). Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Hagen, K. (2007). The Philosophy of Xunzi: A Reconstruction. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, C. (1992). A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hertz, Robert. [1907] 1960. ‘A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death.’ In Death and the Right Hand, R. Needham and C. Needham, tr. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ivanhoe, P. J. (2000). Confucian Moral Self Cultivation (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, E. (2010). Were There Inner Chapters in the Warring States? A New Examination of Evidence about the Zhuangzi. T’oung Pao, 96(4–5), 299–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lau, D. C. (Ed.). (1996). A Concordance to the Xunzi. Hong Kong: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
  24. Li, C. (2007). Li as Cultural Grammar: On the Relation Between Li and Ren in Confucius’s Analects. Philosophy East & West, 57(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, X. (1994). Classifying the Zhuangzi chapters. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  26. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1965. ‘Religion and Society,’ in Structure and Function in Primitive Society, 153–77. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rappaport, R. (1999). Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seligman, A., Weller, R., Puett, M., & Simon, B. (2008). Ritual and Its Consequences. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shun, Kwong-loi. (1993). Ren and Li in the Analects. Philosophy East & West, 43(3), 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong, David. 2008. ‘Chinese Ethics.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Zalta, ed. URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ethics-chinese/>.
  31. Zhuāngzǐ Yǐndé (A Concordance to Zhuāngzǐ). 1956. Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series, Supplement no. 20. Cambridge Ma.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Hong KongPokfulam RoadHong Kong

Personalised recommendations