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

conduct, which was seen as a bad model for commoners, were the major charges. Even if Li Zhi’s intellectual concern was the cultivation of one’s authentic moral self based on the thought of Wang Yangming, he showed no interest in state reform or political opposition, and it was exactly because of this that his case became emblematic of a new kind of intolerance. Jin Jiang persuasively stresses that Li’s heteropraxis—the combination of his unconventional social behavior with its legitimation by his theory of authentic moral self—was the primary cause of his persecution and that his persecution was essentially local in nature.²⁹ This helps understand the specificity of this case, the development of the concept of individual freedom in the search of one’s moral self, and the reaction of local powers against a provocative model of behavior.³⁰ Li Zhi’s accusers’ did not focus on Li Zhi’s unorthodoxy but fixated on his immoral conduct and the dangers of his influence as a “bad master.” Moreover, Li’s case elucidates that, when compared with a relatively major tolerance on religious and doctrinaire matters, Confucian morality and ethical standards were given utmost priority in traditional China.³¹ Li’s public speeches, the publication of heterodox books, and hostility toward powerful officials and clan members only worsened his position. This means that even if the state’s control loosened during the late Ming and scholars enjoyed a degree of autonomy from the state higher than that of other historical periods, “socioethical orthodoxy” still remained a sensitive issue. One may therefore conclude that the individual was granted a space to cultivate one’s self as long as this did not interfere with mainstream morality or affect people’s conduct.³²

While the case of Zhu Jiyou was an expression of the ideological intolerance of the central administration and its cultural policy, the events of 1591 and 1600 exemplify a so-called “intolerance of the majority,” one which originated from “below” and spread mainly at the local level, thanks to the actions taken by the gentry against Li Zhi’s provocation. Obviously this part of the gentry was not the majority of the population but represented the public opinion for its organization and power. No doubt that it was Geng’s disciples who fomented the local gentry through