I just found an article at the Asia Times that discusses government corruption in India, China and Indonesia. An interesting comparison, but it had this rather bizarre paragraph:
Culturally, the Taoist framework of self-maximization has much to do with corruption in China. In contrast with the Confucian principles that call for officials to act for the common good, Taoism recognizes the need and right of individuals to act for their own benefit. This allows Chinese people to accept the need for officials to enrich themselves, and,indeed, many see the richer as more successful. This is why corruption is quite open and direct; you can almost predict what any particular activity will cost.
The only way I can understand this assertion is that the author is extrapolating from the religious Taoist practice of life extension, searching for medicinal means to prolong health and life span. But the interpretation fails, utterly. The author has obviously never seriously read the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu or Lieh Tzu. If he (she?) had, he would know that Taoism is not about selfishness. It is not about "the need and right of individuals to act for their own benefit." Let the Tao Te Ching say it (passage 22):
Give up self-reflection
and you’re soon enlightened.
Give up self-definition
and you’re soon apparent.
Give up self-promotion
and you’re soon proverbial.
Give up self-esteem
and you’re soon perennial.
Simply give up contention
and soon nothing in all beneath heaven contends with you.
The point here is to give up the conscious pursuit of self-interest, which will allow the real "self-interest" of finding one’s natural place in Way to become manifest. Using a public office for personal material gain – which is how corruption is usually defined – is very far from this ideal. A person looking to give up self-promotion and self-esteem would, first, eschew political office and, second, not be interested in material pleasure. After all, "things rare and expensive make people lose their way." (TTC, 12). The Asceticism of Taoism is well-known and well-established.
This whole thing just strikes me as cultural misinterpretation at its worst.
Leave a reply to Casey Kochmer Cancel reply