Legalism is an ancient Chinese philosophical school in terms of law, reform, governance, management, economic regulation, social order, etc. For more than 200 years, the Chinese people have experienced war as their daily reality, and a legalistic approach to trying to control people`s worst impulses – controlling people through the threat of severe punishment for injustice – would have been the best way to deal with the chaos. Shang Yang`s legalism dealt with everyday situations, but also extended to how to behave in wartime, and he is credited with the tactic of total war, which allowed the Qin state to defeat other warring states in order to control China. In Chinese history, legalism (Chinese: 法家; pinyin Fǎjiā) was one of the four most important philosophical schools of the Spring and Autumn periods and the Warring States period (towards the end of the Zhou dynasty from the sixth century BC to about the third century BC). It is in fact more of a pragmatic political philosophy with maxims such as “As times have changed, paths have changed” as an essential principle, than jurisprudence. In this context, “legalism” here may have the meaning of “political philosophy that defends the rule of law” and thus differ from the Western meaning of the word. Hanfeizi believed that a ruler should govern his subjects through the following trinity: The founder of the legalistic school was Hsün Tzu or Hsün-tzu. The most important principle in his thinking was that humans are inherently evil and prone to criminal and selfish behavior. So if people are allowed to engage with their natural inclinations, the result will be conflict and social disorder. As a solution to this problem, the ancient wise kings invented morality.
Since morality does not exist in nature, the only way to behave morally is through habituation and severe punishment (Lau 120). Like the Italian political philosopher Machiavelli, Hsün Tzu clearly distinguishes between what belongs to heaven and what belongs to man. Later legalistic thought influenced Chinese political theorists such as Tung Chung-shu, who believed in a rigid mathematical relationship in social arrangements. This seems to be a rare glimpse into the fundamental inability of the administrative system to monitor itself in the long run; However, the discovery does not lead to radical alternatives to the system of control over officials. The chapter merely asserts the superiority of techniques and rules over personal interference by the leader in policy-making, and does not explain how these would prevent the machinations of supervisors. To the extent that techniques and rules are implemented by selfish – or simply erroneous – people, the question remains: to what extent can the impersonal mode of government cure the diseases inherent in the bureaucratic system (cf. Van Norden 2013)? This question remains one of the greatest challenges to the legacy of legalists. Legalism is an approach to the analysis of legal issues characterized by abstract logical thinking that focuses on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, law, or jurisprudence, rather than the social, economic, or political context. In its narrower versions, legalism perpetuates the idea that the pre-existing body of authoritative legal documents already contains a predetermined “right answer” to any legal problem that may arise; and that the task of the judge is to ensure this unequivocal answer by means of an essentially mechanical procedure.
This application of the Western law school has little to do with the Chinese philosophical school of the same name, which is being discussed from now on. The history of Korean legalism dates back to Gyeonggukdaejeon, a code of laws compiled during the Joseon Dynasty. There is a mixed perception of legalism in South Korean society, as the military regime after World War II used the idea of legalism as a tool of its governance. The ideas are related to Chinese legalism, but often differ due to Korean aversion to what they see as the Chinese use of legalism in an attempt to legitimize Han imperialism.1 In later dynasties, legalism was discredited and ceased to be an independent school of thought.
Comments are closed.