UNDERSTANDING ANCIENT CHINESE SOCIETY: APPROACHES TO REN [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] AND MIN [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

• Author: GASSMANN, ROBERT H.
• Position: Bibliography included

The study of ancient Chinese society is fraught with problems and issues and generally hampered by a lack of awareness that many basic terms are in fact still imperfectly understood. The meanings of key designations for social groups have therefore seldom been questioned, leaving them either in the state of "naturally evident" assumptions or of received knowledge hallowed by Chinese and sinological tradition. Although the importance of kinship and clan structures is generally stressed, scholars have not paid much attention to relating the textual evidence on social entities to the corresponding lexical material. This applies particularly to ren and min. Close reading of ancient texts not only reveals many interesting facts and information on the terms themselves, but also prompts us to reassess our understanding of key philosophical concepts in ancient Chinese thought. [1]

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

   THE NEED FOR RECONSTRUCTING ancient Chinese society (or societies) is imperative not only for understanding historical events, social and economic processes, but also essential for more profound insights into ancient thought. The question how key designations for social groups are to be understood in the ancient texts has therefore been a long-standing concern. This applies particularly to ren [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and the various compounds with them as main elements. The following quotation, from Claudius C. Muller, sketches the generally accepted understanding of these two words:

   The most general name for man jen [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and people min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as applied to both Chinese and non-Chinese groups has been valid since Chou times. These two concepts do not contain any racial or linguistic distinctions, but socially distinctive marks are clear in other expressions: The people are seen as an undifferentiated mass: li-min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the numerous people; wan-min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the ten thousand people; cheng-min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and chung-min [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the "masses"; hsiao-jen [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the "small" or common people; and chien [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the inferior people. On the other hand, the aristocrats, the po-hsing [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or "one hundred clans," stand out due to their privilege to carry clan-names. Only the bearers of individual clan-names count, and it is therefore logical that "China (chung-kuo [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is where the prince awards clan-names" (shang-shu). Since a clan is to be understood as a unit comprising the family and the accompanying household, i.e., bond servants, agricultural workers, craftsmen, servants, and slaves, the Chinese people as a whole is referred to in the expression po-hsing. [2]

   Regrettably, the term "sketch" is quite appropriate, not only for the text quoted, but also for recent studies, such as Chinese Civilization in the Making, by Li Jun, [3] or the prestigious Cambridge History of Ancient China. [4] Muller's remarks on ancient Chinese society are brief, but also undeniably blurred and contradictory in many details. The quoted text maintains that "the people are seen as an undifferentiated mass," but this is immediately followed by half a dozen expressions for presumably different parts of the "people." Clan and family are seen as equivalents, whereas the categories of "bond servants, agricultural workers, craftsmen, servants, and slaves" seem to be the product of self-evident assumptions rather than the result of thorough analysis. This lack of consistency is mirrored in translations: ren is predominantly translated as "man, men," but we also find "people"; min, on the other hand, is usually understood as "people, population." The general view is that the two words designate per sons or social groups which, in some undefined way, were identical or which showed a certain amount of overlap. The former is said to focus on the individual or generic aspect of man (thus, in my opinion, misleadingly suggesting the concept of "man" in ancient China), the latter is taken to be the designation of a collective body.

   Although our picture probably will never be clear in all parts, I am convinced that the common opinion is basically wrong. As numerous pieces of textual evidence in which the two words form the composite terms ren min (see example 1, below) or min ren show, we are clearly dealing with two different social groups. The grammatical interpretation is supported by the use of the noun-coordinating conjunction yu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in example 2, and this generally implies that the two terms have no overlap. It is therefore a matter of "apples and pears," and not of "fruit and apples" (or, to be quite explicit, "men and people"). Since no English equivalents are obvious yet, the two terms shall for the time being be dealt with like names. I shall therefore speak of the Ren and of the Min, in the individuating and in the collective senses of the words.

   1 [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

   The feudal lords have three treasures: estates and territory, Ren and Min, government and services. (Meng zi 7B.28) [5]

   2 [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

   The Ren as well as [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the Min of antiquity were pleased together; therefore they were able to feel pleasure. (Meng zi 1A.2)

   The following considerations and the textual evidence presented aim to prove that Ren and Min are designations for two distinct social groups. To ensure a consistent statement, the texts consulted are mainly from the time between 700 and 200 B.C.--Chiunqiu and Zhanguo times. I shall first discuss some basic features of the structure of ancient Chinese society. I shall then present a small set of details to show how far my assumptions will carry, and finally I shall show in outline how the results affect a well-known and basic "philosophical" term.

2. BASIC STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF ANCIENT CHINESE SOCIETY

   Ancient Chinese society, as far as complexity is concerned, is equal to any comparable society in other major cultural regions. Both the textual evidence and the stage of development apparent in archeological discoveries leave no room for doubt about this. Social complexity manifests itself in many areas and structures: stratification, status, kinship, laws, distribution of power and wealth, etc. Quite generally, it can be said that a complex society is structured both in vertical and in horizontal dimensions. That ancient Chinese society was ordered along the vertical line is clearly apparent from the fact that designations for those above and those below existed:

   3 [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

   If Your Majesty says, "How can I profit my principality?" and the Dafu say, "How can I profit my family?" and the Shi and the shu-Ren say, "How can I profit my person?" then those above [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and those below [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] will be trying to profit at the expense of one another and the principality will be imperilled. (Meng zi 1A.1) [6]

   As in the case of Ren and Min I shall transcribe expressions that cannot, at least for the time being, be "correctly" translated. Conventional equivalents will be used only when the range of associations in the target language does not show any essential deviations from those obtaining in Classical Chinese.

   As we know, ancient Chinese society was clearly divided into above and below. According to the Li Ji this hierarchy, for example, had the following form in a principality, and it can be noted that some of the status groups or ranks were also subdivided according to the same principle:

   4 [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

   The Qing, the upper and lower Dafu, and the upper, middle and lower Shi of the lords formed five degrees. (Li ji 5.1)

   Let us ignore the strange number of "five" degrees and gather from this example that above and below are relative concepts. Compared with the Shi the Dafu is above; compared with the Qing, he is below. Therefore, shang [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] must occasionally also be interpreted as "the topmost," i.e., the prince, because this position is at the end of the ladder. To complete the picture, the shu-Ren mentioned in example 3 have to be added to the ranks named in example 4. The hierarchy of ranks in a principality thus had the following form (the bracketed conventional equivalents are only for orientation and shall not be used again in this paper):

   RANKS IN A PRINCIPALITY Status Transcription Convention [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT Jun prince REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT Qing (minister) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT Dafu (counselor) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT Shi (gentleman) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT shu-Ren (people, commoner) REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] The fact that the lowest status group, the shu-Ren, is designated by a compound word which, on the one hand, contains the core word Ren, and, on the other hand, the attribute shu [CHINESE CHARACTERS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (the latter normally understood as "numerous, many" or "common"), has led me--and others--to argue as follows: if the lowest status group is designated with the term "common Ren," the higher status groups, namely the Qing, the Dafu, and the Shi, should then also belong to the social group of the Ren. Since holding certain offices defines the membership in these groups, the Ren as a whole can reasonably be taken as the "ruling" class. This assumption may be supported by the fact that the...