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

The Chinese equivalent geren zhuyi 個人主義 is a neologism which like many other terms has been imported from the West and introduced to China via Japan (kojinshugi). Its formal inclusion in the Chinese vocabulary in 1914 has contributed to the emergence of a debate on individualism in China as well,⁴ but if we examine earlier periods, we find out that there are actually interesting “analogies” with the aforementioned concepts in Chinese culture which predate the introduction of this term, albeit with other specificities. Analogies—not identity—can be singled out by circumscribing the meaning of “individuality” to the cross-cultural notion of the perception of the autonomy of the individual in society.

In Europe and the West in general, individualism proved to be a winning model for the importance given to creativity and progress. Its origin is traced back to the Greek’s concept of “agonal” self, and its evolution crisscrosses the debate of freedom and equality.⁵ Through the centuries, individualism came to be associated with cynicism and stoicism, and eventually with Christianity—porro unum est necessarium servare animam: “yet more there is need of only one thing, to save the soul” (which is individual par excellence). Finally, the Enlightenment and Romanticism made a substantial contribution to the development of the concept of individualism. This complex and rich history makes the term riddled with contradictory nuances.⁶ Its modern formulation and realization have always encountered obstacles, and, contrary to conventional beliefs, individualism is not an exclusively Western phenomenon that is stereotypically opposed to the Asian attitude or way of thinking. In fact, in Europe, individualistic ideas were countered from the very beginning by conservative thinkers, in particular, those against the Enlightenment. Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821), for instance, complained that social order had been “shattered to its foundations because there was too much liberty in Europe and not enough religion,” that authority was weakening and “individual opinion[s]” (l’esprit particulier) growing frighteningly.⁷ Anarchy was one of the feared consequences of this reasoning for “[i]ndividualism […] destroys the very idea of obedience and duty, thereby destroying both power and law; and what then remains