VOLUME IV, CHAPTER 12, SECTION 3
Seven Core Claims, Part One, Enfeoffment, the Examination, Centralized Authority
Last section covered the difference in the range of sight. But a different range is not the same as different claims, and it has to come down to concrete claims. This section, and the first section of the next chapter, compare the core claims this book set firm in the first three Parts one by one with the core claims of the main great thinkers within five hundred years, letting the reader see for themselves which are a carrying-forward, which a new integration, and which a root difference. This section covers the first three, enfeoffment, the examination, and centralized authority.
A different range is not the same as different claims, and under two ranges similar claims may be drawn too, so to make the difference concrete it must come down to concrete claims. This section compares this book's claims with the great thinkers' claims one by one, letting the reader see for themselves which claims the great thinkers said and this book only carries forward, which the great thinkers did not say and this book newly integrates on the base of those before, and which the great thinkers said but this book puts a different judgment on. The claims are many and cannot be covered in one section, so this section first covers the first three, enfeoffment, the examination, and centralized authority, and the first section of the next chapter covers the last four. This book is honest, not exaggerating the difference, not denying those before, not reaching a verdict for the reader, presenting the comparison and letting the reader see for themselves.
Claim one, the institutions of enfeoffment are the political institution. The core claim this book set firm in Part One, the institutions of enfeoffment are the political institution, every politics begins from enfeoffment, enfeoffment will not abolish itself, so a political institution can only evolve on the base of enfeoffment. The great thinkers of five hundred years each had a different core judgment on the origin of politics. Locke held that politics originates in natural rights plus the social contract, humankind setting out from the state of nature, voluntarily making a contract to protect natural rights, and building a government. Hobbes held that politics originates in the fear of the state of nature, ceding power to the sovereign through a contract. Rousseau held that politics originates in the general will plus the association of citizens. Marx set firm that politics is the superstructure of the economic base, and this line itself is an excellent plain saying, telling the relation between the material base and the upper structure, just as Guanzi taught twenty-seven centuries ago that when the granaries are full people know rite and restraint, the same principle carried further down. Weber held that the essence of politics is the legitimate monopoly of violence. And one scholar held that politics originates in the evolution of the three elements of the state plus the rule of law plus accountability.
Compared side by side, the great thinkers enter from the angle of why there is politics, Locke because people would protect natural rights, Rousseau because people would form an association of citizens, Marx because he would show the relation of the economic base and the superstructure, Weber because violence needs to be made legitimate, these answers all about the cause or purpose of politics. This book enters from the angle of the root structure of politics, that whatever the origin of politics, any politics in operation necessarily has positions, the position being the most basic fact of politics, the granting of a position called enfeoffment, and enfeoffment will not abolish itself, so a political institution always rests on some enfeoffment. These two entries do not negate each other, they complement each other, the great thinkers answering why, this book answering what structure, both answers standing but the angle root-different. Within five hundred years, to set firm enfeoffment as the root structure of political institutions the great thinkers did not do, this being this book's distinctive judgment and the root of Part One.
Claim two, the examination is a merit-selection law running now. The core claim this book set firm in Part Two, the examination is not history, it is a merit-selection law running from the moment a child is educated, with three functions present together, the will of the people, the enlightened ruler who knows talent, and merit selection that yields to the worthy, crossing East and West, the West still doing the examination today. The great thinkers of five hundred years, on the selection of political personnel, discussed mainly election and representative government, political personnel produced through periodic election, and basically did not discuss exam plus objective standard plus merit selection as a mechanism for selecting political personnel. Machiavelli discussed how a ruler recognizes and uses talent, but did not set firm exam plus merit selection as a systematic mechanism. Weber set firm rational-legal authority and the modern bureaucracy, having studied the Chinese examination, but took it as a sample of traditional authority, not setting firm the examination as a present-day law crossing East and West and crossing ages. Scholars later took the Chinese examination as an important sample of the formation of state capacity, but still saw it mainly as a Chinese feature.
Compared side by side, the great thinkers' judgment is that the core mechanism of selecting political personnel is election, and the examination is only a historical phenomenon or a Chinese feature, not a present-day law. This book's judgment is that the examination is a merit-selection law crossing ages, that China's civil-service exam today is the direct continuation of the present-day examination, that the various standardized and qualifying exams of the West today are the Western form of the examination principle, and that the interviews, ability assessments, and performance reviews of the enterprise today are the application of the examination principle in the enterprise-type organization. This book honestly points out that the great thinkers taking election as the core of selecting political personnel is reasonable, but looking only at election misses the merit selection outside election and misses the present-day extension of the examination principle. To set firm the examination as a present-day law crossing East and West, crossing ages, and crossing every organization that needs to select talent, the great thinkers within five hundred years did not do, this being this book's distinctive judgment and the root of Part Two.
Claim three, centralized authority is a life-level law. The core claim this book set firm in Part Three, centralized authority is a life-level law crossing every organized group, the state, the enterprise, the family, the army, the association, opened in full through five distinctive angles. The great thinkers of five hundred years, on centralized authority, Montesquieu set Eastern despotism against Western limited government, basically seeing centralized authority as a feature of the Eastern polity and as something to be avoided. Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and others basically opposed the concentration of power, holding for the limitation of government power. Marx tied centralized authority to a stagnant Asia. Weber studied the modern bureaucracy and the rationalization of the state, attending more to legitimacy. Later some scholars took centralized authority as an expression of state capacity, taking China as humankind's first civilization to truly build a state, and some did cross-domain study of centralized authority, studying the four cases of government, church, large enterprise, and cross-national union, the recent research closest to this book's angle, which must be honestly acknowledged, but which still confined itself to large organizations and did not take in small ones like the family.
So here is the position this section lays down. Compared side by side, the great thinkers' main judgment is that centralized authority is the matter of the state or the government, a system of contrast of Eastern despotism or Western limited government, a certain particular political form, and not a root law crossing every organized group. This book's judgment is that centralized authority is the root running principle of any organized group, crossing the state, the enterprise, the family, the army, the association, the school, the hospital, the ball team, the orchestra, a life-level law that concrete dimensions like the enterprise type against the enfeoffment type, the five powers, the division of function, and the forms of failure all run through. To set firm centralized authority as crossing the category of politics, covering all organized groups including the family, and fitted with five distinctive angles as a research tool, no one within five hundred years did this systematic integration, this being this book's new integration on the base of those before and the root of Part Three. This section set firm this layer. The first three claims together have a common feature, that this book enters not from the great thinkers' angle but from the root structure of politics. Claim one, the great thinkers enter from why there is politics, this book from what structure politics has. Claim two, the great thinkers take election as the core of personnel selection, this book takes the examination as a merit-selection law crossing ages. Claim three, the great thinkers confine centralized authority to the domain of state politics, this book extends it to every organized group. All three claims are not an overturning of the great thinkers, they are entering from a different angle, setting out from the root of the ancestors' twenty-two-hundred-year centralized-authority tradition, seeing some pictures that cannot be seen within the great thinkers' frame. This section means to embarrass no great thinker, every great thinker within five hundred years having made a deep contribution to the political wisdom of humankind, and this book in a posture of humility takes their work as the starting point and reference of its own study. The first section of the next chapter continues the comparison of the last four claims.
Credit to the ancestors; the mistakes are mine: Tiger Lyon.