Individual Autonomy and Responsibility in Late Imperial China By ...

The May Fourth brand of individualism was part of an iconoclastic stance, not the basis of a system of thought; it did not constitute a mature, systematic political and philosophical doctrine.³

Significant is the kind of individualism proclaimed by Du Yaquan 杜亞泉 (1873–1933) and Gao Yihan 高一涵 (1884–1968) who posited a two-fold division: personal and societal individualism, otherwise referred to respectively as “lesser” (xiaoji 小己) and “greater self” (daji 大己). If compared with the Enlightenment paradigm, the former stands for the limitation of the individual, while its contrast with the latter indicates a hierarchical order between the individual and the state rather than an antithetical distinction. The “lesser self” is thus intrinsically linked to the development of society, for it came to be embedded in a circular structure where: (1) individual freedom is secured through collective freedom; (2) collective freedom is obtained through individual “self-discipline” (zizhi 自治); and (3) self-discipline, in turn, represents the foundation on which the autonomy of the nation is established.⁴ One may understand how the autonomy of the citizen is precarious in this subordinated dimension.

Analogous to the “greater and lesser self” (daji-xiaoji) is the process that developed with the dyad “small I” (xiaowo 小我), and “large I” (dawo 大我). With the criticism and decline of Confucianism and its practice of self-cultivation, the dichotomy between the egoistic I and the general interest of the group/society has progressively dissolved the previous concept of dynamic self, conceived in the process of self-cultivation where it had the potential for endless transformation, by progressively embracing the family, state, nature and universe. Thus the individual was reduced to a “small self,” more or less functional to the benefit of the society and the prosperity of the nation, instead of being the central subject. This manipulation of the dyad “small” and “big” self associated the traditional rhetoric of the general-particular polarities with nationalistic and authoritarian perspectives.⁵