{"id":42508,"date":"2015-01-04T06:52:57","date_gmt":"2015-01-04T06:52:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=42508"},"modified":"2015-01-04T06:52:57","modified_gmt":"2015-01-04T06:52:57","slug":"t-greer-on-sun-tzu-the-radical","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=42508","title":{"rendered":"T. Greer on Sun Tzu the Radical"},"content":{"rendered":"

[by Mark Safranski<\/strong>, a.k.a. “zen<\/strong>“]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

T. Greer<\/strong> at Scholar’s Stage<\/strong> had an outstanding post on Sun Tzu<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>and his classic The Art of War<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0<\/a>the other day in which I learned a number of things that were new to me, which is the best kind of blog post!<\/p>\n

The Radical Sunzi<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

When translated into English, the Sunzi Bingfa<\/i>, usually titled Sunzi’s Art of War<\/a>, <\/i>is a fairly small work. When we take away the commentary and annotation added by its translators we are left with a sparse text indeed: Roger Ames’ translation<\/a> is 71 pages long, the Denma Group’s translation<\/a> is 66 pages, Victor Mair’s translation<\/a> is only 56, and Ralph Sawyer’s translation<\/a> clocks in at a mere 30 pages total. [1] The brevity of the Sunzi <\/i>explains its staying power. The Sunzi <\/i>only has space for a foundational discussion of abstract strategic principles, leaving no room for detailed discussions of either the tactics or the political realities of its time. This is what gives the Sunzi <\/i>its transcendent feel. Great power competition between the kingdoms of Chu<\/a>, Qi<\/a>, and Qin <\/a>faded into the realm of memory centuries ago; the proper way to deploy squadrons of crossbowmen and charioteers is now a question that interests only the historian. In contrast, the strategic principles outlined in the Sunzi <\/i>endure. Their very terseness frees them from the historical context from which they came and allows them to be applied by men living thousands of years after they were first etched into bamboo.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Timeless as it may seem, however, the Sunzi<\/i> was the product of problems experienced at a specific time and a specific place. It is my belief that we cannot really understand the Sunzi<\/i> if we do not first understand the world from which it came–the world of the Warring States<\/a>.[2] A few historians and scholars of Chinese thought have written this sort of analysis; the best of these attempts to place the Sunzi <\/i>within its historical context are usually focused on the broad, macro-historical trends that divided the Spring and Autumn period<\/a> that preceded the Sunzi<\/i>from the Warring States period that gave birth to it. From this perspective the Sunzi <\/i>and the other military manuals<\/a> that followed it were the natural product of a world torn asunder by wars waged on an ever increasing scale between large infantry armies fighting in the name of territorial, bureaucratized states.[3] There is, however, more to the Sunzi<\/i>‘s historical setting than the institutional history of ancient China. Just as important is the intellectual milieu of early Warring States times. The compilers of the Sunzi <\/i>were not the first Chinese to write about war. When read as a response to these earlier voices, the Sunzi’<\/i>s vision of war and politics is nothing less than radical. [….]<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here comes the important part, one that demonstrates a curious symmetry with the cultural shift \u00a0between the post-Dark Age heroic-aristocratic Archaic Greece to the Classical Greece of the Golden Age that laid the foundations of Western civilization:<\/p>\n

….The Sunzi <\/i>that Meyer describes is radical–at the time of its compilation it was possibly the most radical attack on ancient China’s old aristocratic order etched in bamboo. The Sunzi<\/i>‘s assault on the old regime begins with its opening line:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The military [bing<\/i>] is the great affair of the state, the terrain of life and death, the way of survival and extinction, it cannot but be investigated. [4]<\/strong><\/p>\n

To modern ears this sentence may sound controversial, but it is hardly subversive. Its revolutionary nature only becomes clear when we see what it was written in response to. The place to turn is the Zuo Zhuan<\/i><\/a>, China’s oldest narrative historical account and one of the few preserves of the old Spring and Autumn ethos. One of its better known dictums reads:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The great affairs of state are sacrifice and warfare.[5]<\/strong><\/p>\n

Meyer comments on the contrast between the two statements:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[In the Sunzi<\/i>] all mention of sacrifice is eliminated, telegraphing the text\u2019s contention that martial matters must be viewed in purely material terms. Rather than \u201cwarfare,\u201d the \u201cmilitary\u201d is held up as the great affair of state, implying (as the text goes on to elaborate) that there are uses for military power beyond the \u2018honorable\u2019 contest of arms. Moreover, the word that the Sunzi uses by reference to the \u201cmilitary,\u201d bing<\/i>???, does not evoke the aristocratic charioteer but the common foot solider, who had become the backbone of the Warring States army.[6]<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Sunzi<\/i>‘s insistence that military methods were more important to the state’s survival than sacrifice was not merely radical–it was nonsensical. In the early Chinese world view, sacrifice and warfare could not be separated from each other. As with the Aztecs, Maya, and many other premodern peoples, for the Chinese of Zhou times, warfare was <\/i>a sacrificial ritual. The Lost Book of Zhou,<\/i><\/a> an early warring states record that chronicled the conquests of the semi-mythical King Wu, provides a clear picture of these views. It contains an interesting narrative account of the King’s return to his clan’s ancestral temple to report his victorious conquest:<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read the rest here<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

I just finished reading a book by the Israeli scholar Moshe Halbertal<\/strong>, On Sacrifice<\/strong><\/em><\/a>; here’s an enormous difference between a culture that “sacrifices to<\/em>” and one that is worth or requires “sacrificing for<\/em>“. It is not only a cultural difference, it is cognitive. Strategy is possible in a “sacrificing to” society only to the extent that it does not conflict with (often maximalist) religious dictates, which will often mean a rational strategy to achieve victory is impossible. The Jews at Masada<\/strong><\/a> or the Greeks of the Trojan War<\/a> <\/strong>would have understood the precepts of warfare of the ancient Chinese of the Zhou<\/strong> era<\/a> very well.<\/p>\n

In war, the bronze age peoples sacrificed to. We sacrifice for – and to spend our lives to best effect we need strategy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[by Mark Safranski, a.k.a. “zen“] T. Greer at Scholar’s Stage had an outstanding post on Sun Tzu\u00a0and his classic The Art of War\u00a0the other day in which I learned a number of things that were new to me, which is the best kind of blog post! The Radical Sunzi When translated into English, the Sunzi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[414,144,215,51,367,833,1036,481,127,530,914,13,18,217],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ancient-history","category-china","category-culture","category-history","category-military-history","category-sacrifice","category-stratagems","category-strategist","category-strategy","category-strategy-and-war","category-sun-tsu","category-theory","category-war","category-warriors"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=42508"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42508\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42511,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42508\/revisions\/42511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}