Harmonizing Openness in the Zhuangzi: A Critique of Respecting Diversity

Abstract

In contemporary societies, increasing diversity is often accompanied by intensified conflicts across various public domains. While respecting differences is commonly proposed as a solution, this necessarily narrows the scope of shared values, which correspondingly decreases the chances of developing harmony. Indeed, harmony is frequently criticized for potentially requiring uniformity, which would undermine diversity. This article addresses this challenge by exploring philosophical and religious perspectives drawn from the Zhuangzi. Specifically, we find that a type of dynamic openness can be found in the Zhuangzi which shifts the focus away from embracing a more static “diversity”. Here, openness is understood as emphasizing interconnectedness, mutual influence, and collective transformation, offering a framework for resolving conflicts beyond mere respect for differences. In this article, we argue that one type of philosophical–religious perspective that can be derived from the Zhuangzi advocates for harmonizing openness—a process that achieves consensus while fully allowing for individual differences, rather than enforcing the type of uniformity found in many calls to respect diversity. This perspective offers valuable insights for the navigation of conflict in an increasingly pluralistic world and provides a critique of more popular contemporary approaches.

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Harmony and Difference

In contemporary society, conflicts are intensifying across various dimensions—between individuals, nations, and ethnic groups. These conflicts manifest in religious disputes, cultural clashes, and a host of other struggles, including those related to social justice and political correctness as well. Such tensions are often attributed to the increasing diversity of modern society. Differences in religious and political beliefs, ethnicity, race, class, and identity create conflicting perspectives on the same issues and lead to disagreements. On many significant issues, it is difficult to achieve a consensus or even avoid harsh disagreements. Addressing these conflicts and fostering social and political harmony—or “stability”—has become a critical challenge. One well-accepted solution lies in fully recognizing and respecting the differences between individuals or groups, thereby promoting their coexistence through smoothing out distinctions and taking every person and perspective as equally valid. However, as many critical thinkers have argued, this not only fails to solve actual problems, but it further hollows out values and erodes communities.

Harmony as a value in socio-political areas is often criticized for potentially necessitating uniformity. Chenyang Li has elaborated that, “In the contemporary West, harmony is often understood as accord and agreement, with an emphasis on consistency and uniformity” (Li 2021, p. 43). He cites Martha Nussbaum, who terms this perspective “consistent harmony” (Nussbaum 1990, p. 89). In this sense, harmony and diversity seem mutually exclusive. On the one hand, diversity implies the coexistence of different entities, and, in socio-political contexts, it requires that various individuals or ideas coexist. The pursuit of harmony also carries a potential requirement for uniformity, which may lead to undermining diversity. On the other hand, even though harmony does not necessarily demand the complete resolution of conflicts, it at least seeks to minimize or control conflicts to a certain extent1. Accordingly, we would like to note that what we term “harmony” can also, from our perspective, include or be critically related to “stability” or the idea of functioning well or efficaciously. This also requires that most conflicts in society be resolved in ways that are acceptable to the relevant parties, thereby achieving a certain degree of consensus. Such consensus, however, often necessitates a degree of alignment or uniformity in individual ideas, which could, to some extent, limit the diversity of ideas within society. This is not because diversity is itself diffused but rather because coming up with shared values is viewed as inherently more important than simply respecting differences. Of course, this can only be done in a matter of degrees. Much of our argument is simply aimed at highlighting the importance of this perspective.

In other words, we are interested in investigating the following question: how much should diversity be celebrated at the expense of social harmony? In exploring potential solutions, we draw on the Zhuangzi, partly expounding ideas found within the text and partly developing critical arguments from inspirations that we find therein. We then diverge from the more mainstream discussion of related issues in contemporary academia. Here, many scholars have argued that both religious Daoism and philosophical Daoism advocate for diversity. As a prominent Daoist text, the Zhuangzi is often seen as a proponent of this perspective. However, this article challenges the adequacy of “diversity” as a concept to fully capture what is discussed in the Zhuangzi.2

This article clarifies that, while the Zhuangzi certainly acknowledges the coexistence of diverse entities, it does not necessarily celebrate diversity. Instead, religious and philosophical perspectives emphasize openness. Unlike diversity, which represents a static and independent observation of things or individuals, openness reflects a dynamic perspective that highlights the interconnectedness of all.3 Openness fosters possibilities for mutual influence and collective transformation, allowing for a deep appreciation of the inherent connection and co-constitution of all things.

Building on appreciating and pursuing openness as a religious and philosophical perspective found in the Zhuangzi, we will argue that merely respecting one another is insufficient in addressing the complexities of certain conflicts4. The Zhuangzi points to the necessity of a harmonizing process that goes beyond simple respect. Harmonizing openness, rather than merely respecting diversity, better encapsulates the approach to dealing with conflicts and achieving harmony found in the Zhuangzi. Harmonizing openness implies, first, that all persons and things involved are open to transformation. Therefore, in the harmonizing process, one can facilitate the transformation of individuals and things to effectively address the conflict.

2. Diversity or Openness in the Zhuangzi

This section begins by reviewing scholarly interpretations of diversity in philosophical and religious Daoism. According to many contemporary scholars working in English, diversity is a central theme in a host of Daoist texts, including the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, among many others. According to Chung-Ying Cheng, when Daodejing describes one giving rise to two and two giving rise to three (Chapter 42), it puts forth diversity as built into the very framework of the cosmos. Diversity is a natural cosmic state and should be prioritized in human thinking, even though things will nevertheless return to the beginning of one (Cheng 2011, p. 360). This generative perspective underscores that diversity is not a matter of various isolated things. Rather, all things are inherently tied to a single source, reflecting the underlying order of the cosmos. Cheng5 further notes that the Zhuangzi also takes the oneness of the Dao very seriously and says, “It is in the Dao that we reach the oneness”. He argues that, for the Zhuangzi, diversity in Dao is also a cosmological principle, more than a biodiversity principle, that allows all things to be equal in regard to their common origin and their common end (Cheng 2011, p. 360).6

Religious Daoism is also widely recognized by scholars in Anglophone academia as embodying a deep appreciation for diversity. There are at least three key dimensions: diversity of Daoist texts, religious practice, and diversity in elixir making. The diversity of Daoist texts offers a perspective on the tradition’s pluralistic nature. Sharon Small, for instance, argues that Daoist texts share significant commonalities despite differences in their ultimate origins. They share the idea of a single ultimate source from which diversity flows (Small 2019). Religious Daoism also fosters diversity in its practices and interactions with other religious traditions. Livia Kohn emphasizes that Daoists adopt a fundamental attitude of tolerance and integration, rooted in the belief that there is only one Dao—a single cosmic vital energy and the true way of the world. According to Kohn, all religions are merely different perspectives and formulations of this universal truth. Kohn further observes that most Daoists readily acknowledge the pluralism of creeds and practices, as well as their diversity (Kohn 2013, p. 53). Elixir-making practices in religious Daoism exemplify its focus on diversity through the use of natural elements. And Chung-Ying Cheng argues that religious Daoism’s deep concern for the comprehensive use of natural elements for elixir making also reveals how the diversity of life is founded on the deep source of life in the unity of nature. Finding this unity of life for the individual is, Chen claims, one of the most important tasks of the Daoist religious practice (Cheng 2011, p. 360).

Before delving into a Zhuangzian concept of diversity, it is crucial to first clarify the notion of diversity itself. Diversity primarily encompasses two aspects: first, the inclusion of various types of entities or a range of different things within a particular context; second, the existence of numerous differing ideas or opinions about something. Scholars discussing the Zhuangzi mainly note two different kinds of diversity: the diversity of things and the diversity of perspectives. Among these, the diversity of things is arguably more fundamental.7

While there has been significant discussion on the diversity of perspectives and the diversity of Dao, the diversity of things has often been passed over, with little more than superficial comments. This oversight is critical because the diversity of things directly influences discussions about the diversity of perspectives. Scholars often assume that the Zhuangzi advocates for the diversity of things, which, in turn, leads to the diversity of perspectives or even the diversity of Dao. However, few have closely examined whether the Zhuangzi explicitly advocates for the diversity of things.

While the Zhuangzi vividly describes various beings, ranging from plants, animals, and people to ghosts and various objects, and sees each as having, or being, their own unique perspectives, this does not necessarily mean that the Zhuangzi advocates for, or promotes a celebration of, diversity. Depictions of distinct things only demonstrate that the diversity of things is present in these discourses and stories. We argue that the way that the Zhuangzi simply notes diversity is not necessarily constitutive of praise for diversity. Additionally, the assumption that the Zhuangzi holds such a position does not adequately describe the conditions of things in the Zhuangzi. Specifically, diversity fails to account for two critical aspects. First, diversity offers a static description of the state of things. However, the notions of change and transformation are central in the Zhuangzi. Diversity, as a concept, fails to capture the dynamic processes through which things evolve and interact. Second, diversity focuses on the differences between entities but does not adequately explain the intricate interconnectedness of all things. It merely presents the outcomes of existence while neglecting the relationships among things, as well as the connections between their present states and their past or future conditions. In other words, diversity overlooks the contingency of the world.

We propose that openness is a better way to classify the religious and philosophical ideas found within the Zhuangzi. Although this idea is alluded to throughout the text, one place in which we find it well illustrated is in the story of the River God at the very beginning of the Autumn Waters (Qiu Shui 秋水) chapter of the Zhuangzi.

The time of autumn waters had come, and all the streams were pouring into the Yellow River. The expanse of its unobstructed flow was so great that a horse on the other bank could not be distinguished from a cow. The River God was over-joyed, delighting in his own powers, believing all the world’s beauty now to be encompassed within himself. Flowing eastward, he arrived at the Northern Sea. Casting his gaze toward the east, he saw no end to the waters. It was then that his face began twisting and turning, a whirlpool of features, in his attempt to take the sea in his sights. He then addressed Ruo of the Northern Sea with a sigh: “There is a saying in the outlands: ‘He who hears the Dao a mere hundred times believes no one can compare with him’. This describes me perfectly. When I first heard that there are those who belittle the erudition of Confucius and the righteousness of Bo Yi, I didn’t believe it. But now I have seen your vastness with my own eyes. If I had never come here to your gate, I might have become a laughingstock to the masters of the Great Purview!”

(Ziporyn 2009, p. 134; translation modified)8

Some significant distinctions between diversity and openness lie in the following. First, diversity refers to the existing states of things or individuals at a specific moment in time, without necessarily accounting for what occurred before or will happen after. In contrast, openness not only describes the current condition of things or individuals but also acknowledges their connection to past and future states as part of interconnected, dynamic processes. Importantly, this does not imply continuity or sameness over time. On the contrary, openness suggests that a thing or person does not remain the same as it was before and can change in the future. Such changes range from subtle to dramatic, encompassing smooth transitions or startling transformations. Examples of this can be found throughout the Zhuangzi: the dramatic metamorphosis of the fish Kun into the bird Peng, Zhuang Zhou’s dream transformation into a butterfly, or the subtle shifts in perspective that occur during conversations, where individuals change their minds after engaging with others. Openness implies that everything, including humans, non-human animals, flora, and objects, is in constant flux and capable of transformation. Moreover, all things exist within this process of transformation, interacting with and influencing one another. Second, openness entails being receptive to others and all sorts of contingencies, not only as external factors that might affect one but as having an important bearing on the way in which one is constituted. This also means that one recognizes oneself as having an important role in how situations, environments, and particular things and people actually become what they are. In other words, openness involves a willingness to engage in dialog and interaction, rather than existing in isolation, where each individual is merely separate and disconnected. Openness recognizes (but does not celebrate) mutual constitutiveness and transformation as foundational. And this invites people to reflect on the limitations of their perspectives and recognize that much of the world, and even themselves, is largely unknowable. Thus, rather than idealizing respect, which marks distinctions and things as fixed and easily can become a type of hubris, the attitude that we find in the Zhuangzi motivates harmony or harmonizing.9

3. Respect or Harmony

Dealing with diversity is challenging. Tolerance is one way to allow diversity to flourish while simultaneously lessening conflicts. A good deal of modern political thinkers have posited that tolerance is vital in preserving the interests of individuals. From John Locke and John Stuart Mill through John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Michael Walzer, and Richard Rorty, there is widespread agreement that tolerance is vital for justice and good politics.

Working on the Zhuangzi, Yong Huang elaborates that tolerance, while widely seen as essential in engaging with diversity in race, religion, language, culture, gender, and sexuality, already harbors conflict. It inherently involves objection: to tolerate something is to object to it while refraining from interference. Accordingly, Huang argues that we should not object to people because of their differences in race, religion, language, culture, gender, or sexuality. Instead, we should cultivate a type of respect, which is different from tolerance, and, in the Zhuangzi, we find instances of such respect (Huang 2023, p. 28). Huang provides multiple examples from the Zhuangzi, which he sees as illustrating this perspective on respecting ways of life that are different from our own. These include Bole (伯乐) taming horses according to his own methods rather than accommodating the horses’ nature, providing a counterexample of not respecting others in their own ways (Zhuangzi 9.1); eels sleeping in damp places unsuitable for humans (Zhuangzi 2.11); and the tale of the emperors Shu, Hu, and Hundun (Zhuangzi 7.7). The latter, in particular, shows how attempts to impose external ways on others—such as treating Hundun inappropriately—can lead to harm and even death. According to Huang, the Zhuangzi uses these stories to emphasize the importance of respecting others in their own ways and refraining from interference.

Admittedly, respect among individuals can help to resolve some conflicts and prevent interference with others. However, in more complex situations, mere respect often falls short. For instance, Chapter 4 of the Zhuangzi, titled In the Human World (Ren Jian Shi 人间世), illustrates the challenges of human affairs and the difficulty in resolving interpersonal conflicts, where even slight missteps can lead to fatal consequences. In the story of Yan He tutoring the Duke Ling, we find the following.

When Yan He was appointed tutor to the crown prince of Wei, son of Duke Ling, he went to consult with Qu Boyu. “Here is a man who is just naturally no good. If I find no way to contain him, he will endanger my state, but if I do try to contain him, he will endanger my life. His cleverness allows him to understand the crimes people commit, but not why they were driven to commit these crimes. What should I do?” Qu Boyu said, “A good question indeed! You must be attentive to him, cautious of him, but also put your own person into proper alignment! Best to be both compromising in appearance and harmonious in mind. But even these measures can present problems. Don’t let the external compromise get inside you, and don’t let your inner harmony show itself externally. If you let the external compromise get inside you, it will topple you, destroy you, collapse you, cripple you. If the harmony10 in your heart shows itself externally, it will lead to reputation and renown, which will haunt and plague you. If he’s playing the baby, play baby with him. If he’s being lawless and unrestrained, be lawless and unrestrained with him. If his behavior is unbounded and shapeless, be unbounded and shapeless with him. You must commune with him to the point of flawlessness”

(Ziporyn 2020, p. 40).11

The crown prince of Wei is a tyrant. Lacking both education and restraint, he poses a threat to the state. However, as the crown prince’s tutor, if Yan He attempts to restrain him, he risks provoking the prince’s displeasure and endangering his own life. This places Yan He in a difficult dilemma, as the interests of the crown prince and the state conflict with one another. The crown prince can easily endanger the lives and well-being of the people in the state. In such a situation, mere respect is insufficient to resolve the conflict. If Yan He simply respects the crown prince and allows him to act as he pleases, he fails in his duty as a tutor, leaving the prince to harm the state and its people. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that, in some conflicts, such as this one, respect alone is inadequate. Moreover, if Yan He seeks to fulfill his obligation as a tutor by teaching and restraining the crown prince, a second conflict arises—this time between Yan He himself and the crown prince. In this scenario, should Yan He oppose the prince, the latter could easily threaten Yan He’s life (the text suggests that this is almost a foregone conclusion). Thus, while direct opposition might address the first conflict, it simultaneously creates a second one, leaving the issue unresolved. This demonstrates that neither mere respect nor outright opposition is sufficient to effectively resolve a conflict like this one.

In the above story, Yan He is portrayed as passively caught in the conflict between Duke Ling’s crown prince and the interests of the state—Yan He is taking up a post that is wrought with precarious factors. The opening story of this chapter describes Yan Hui in a somewhat similar situation, although he is more gung ho. Yan Hui seeks advice from Confucius about how he can deal with the young ruler of Wei, a despot who cares nothing for the people he rules. Yan Hui wishes to apply Confucius’ teachings to rectify the situation. At first, Confucius cautions Yan Hui by suggesting that it is not his responsibility and that he is likely to be harmed in his endeavors. After a rather long interchange, Confucius says that if Yan Hui must go, he should practice fasting his heart-mind (xinzhai, 心斋) to better navigate the challenges in Wei. Importantly, before commenting on this fasting, we should note that, in his lengthy advice to Yan Hui, at no point does Confucius advise Yan Hui to simply respect the ruler as he is. Instead, Confucius actively engages in criticizing the ruler and ultimately seeks to persuade him away from his tyrannical ways. Fasting the heart-mind, Confucius’ recommended method, involves being focused and empty so that one responds appropriately to difficulties. It is ultimately a way to correct the bully without jeopardizing one’s own safety. In sum, these examples show that the perspective in the Zhuangzi goes beyond mere respect between others in their own ways. At times, the Zhuangzi advocates for a more active and transformative approach to engagement.

The above stories already provide a number of approaches to serious dilemmas. In the discussion of Yan He’s difficulties, Qu Boyu offers a twofold solution: “compromising in appearance and harmonious in mind”. “Compromising in appearance” is where we find respect. When the crown prince acts childishly, Yan He should play along with him; when he behaves lawlessly, Yan He should mirror his lack of restraint. This approach does not involve holding firm to any specific position but focuses on respecting the prince for who he is. The key to such external compromise is ensuring that it does not penetrate inward or compromise oneself. Still, this alone cannot fully resolve the conflict, requiring a second step: “harmonious in mind”. This step sets a higher standard—only through internal harmony can one achieve a better communion with the prince. It involves not only subtly influencing the prince to mitigate harm to the people under his rule but also avoiding direct conflict with him. As suggested, trying to achieve internal harmony might allow Yan He to address the first conflict between the prince and the state without triggering the second conflict between the prince and himself.

The advice that Confucius gives to Yan Hui is largely similar, except that the idea of respect is all but absent. In fasting his heart-mind, the first step is to be unified and empty and to wait for things. If he is in line with Dao, his emptiness can respond effectively to other things, and fasting one’s heart-mind can bring about this state. In this way, Yan Hui can respond effectively and appropriately to the despotic bully. The best-case scenario is that this ruler actually seeks to harmonize with Yan Hui and therefore Dao.

A few sections later, we find an even more detailed account of what harmony looks like. The famous narrative “Three in the Morning and Four in the Evening” tells the following.

“Once a monkey trainer was distributing chestnuts. He said, ‘I’ll give you three in the morning and four in the evening’. The monkeys were furious. ‘Well, then’, he said, ‘I’ll give you four in the morning and three in the evening’. The monkeys were delighted. This change brought them no loss either in name or in fact, but in one case it brought anger and in another delight. He just went along with the ‘thisness’, relying on the rightness of the present ‘this’. Thus the Sage uses various rights and wrongs to harmonize with others, and yet remains at rest in the middle of Heaven the Potter’s Wheel This is called Walking Two Roads”.

(Ziporyn 2020, pp. 15–16)

In this story, the monkeys want more chestnuts, while the trainer is determined to stick to his plan of keeping to seven chestnuts for each everyday. This creates a conflict between the monkeys and the trainer. How does the trainer resolve it? First, he respects the monkeys’ preferences without entirely giving in to their demands. Rather than simply granting their request, he considers his own intentions and devises a compromise: giving the monkeys more chestnuts in the morning but fewer in the evening. This solution satisfies both parties, resolving the conflict and leaving everyone content. We will not delve deeply into the interpretation of “Walking Two Roads”.12 If we consider it simply from its literal meaning, it suggests that we do not get caught up in debating the rights and wrongs of either side. Instead, we aim to fully take both perspectives into account and find a way for both paths to coexist and continue forward.

Of course, this type of approach is not always possible, but we can also note that “respecting differences” is also an ideal that often has little bearing on the actual world. Harmony asks us to orientate our efforts, and our entire perspective on relations, environments, and transformation, in a different way.

4. Openness, Difference, Harmony

The tension between sameness (unification) and difference is a central issue in discussions of harmony. A critical question is whether social harmony requires uniformity among individuals, thereby potentially threatening the development of individual diversity. Addressing this issue, various philosophical traditions, with their own respective takes on the relationship between sameness and difference, propose distinct approaches to harmony. This section will examine how the relationship between sameness and difference is addressed in the philosophies of the Mohists, Confucians, and Daoists, focusing on the Zhuangzi. By exploring their differing attitudes and corresponding methods of achieving harmony, it will highlight the unique importance of the emphasis on openness in the harmonizing process found in the Zhuangzi.

Harmony in society, as the opposite of conflict or chaos, is a way for different individuals to coexist and have smooth and effective relations. But everyone is different in so many ways, and will react to similar situations, and be transformed, in different ways again. So, achieving and continually maintaining harmony presents constant challenges. Seeking some degree of uniformity (tong 同) is an important means to reduce conflicts among individuals with differences. The Zhuangzi notes some relation between uniformity (tong 同) and harmony (he 和)13: “To merge with it is to be in harmony (tong yan zhe he 同焉者和), but to try to gain something from it is to lose it. So never precede others; follow behind them instead” (Ziporyn 2020, p. 271).14 When individuals with diverse perspectives can reach a consensus on a particular issue, it can offer a solution to potential conflicts. In various models of harmony, the emphasis on and utilization of seeking some degree of uniformity while leaving room for differences may be diverse. Exactly what, when, and how people agree and disagree is something that needs to be negotiated and constantly renegotiated in various situations depending on a host of factors, including the people involved, circumstantial conditions, and the issues at play. At the same time, we can note that the more we prioritize seeking uniformity, the less space we leave for differences. Conversely, if we emphasize differences, achieving uniformity may become challenging. In the following passages, we explore the perspectives of Mohism, Confucianism, and the Zhuangzi regarding uniformity and differences in harmony, as well as their corresponding approaches to achieving harmony. Through comparisons with the former two, we will further illustrate how harmonizing openness in the Zhuangzi can embrace differences and reach a consensus in the harmonizing process itself.

Mozi places a strong emphasis on uniformity. Fan He, for example, argues that “Mohists adopt tong (uniformity) as the most effective approach to their society of harmony” (He 2021).15 In Mohist harmony, political decisions and general principles are uniformly applied by individuals at every level of society. The effective implementation of uniformity should result in a well-organized society where people stay in harmonious relationships by caring for one another. However, taking into account the inherent diversity of individuals, the greater our pursuit of uniformity (tong 同), the more likely it is to disturb individuals’ original states, thereby affecting individuals. To minimize the interference of harmony with individual diversity and freedoms, we may need to restrict the extent of our pursuit of uniformity.

The Confucian perspective contends that the realization of harmony does not necessarily require absolute uniformity; the coexistence of differences is an important aspect of Confucian harmony. For instance, in the Analects, Confucius says, “exemplary persons harmonize but do not conform, whereas the petty-minded conform but do not harmonize” (Ni 2017).16 In Confucian harmony, showing respect for differences rather than emphasizing conformity leaves room for individual differences. Chenyang Li interprets Confucian harmony with an emphasis on difference, in contrast to “consistent harmony” (Nussbaum 1990, p. 89) in the contemporary West (Li 2021, p. 8). David Wong also argues that there could be a positive relationship between harmony and freedom. When harmony is conceived at least partly as the valuing of difference, freedom for the individual can play a crucial role (Wong 2020, p. 151). Both Li and Wong contend that Confucian harmony, as opposed to conformity, can contribute to various types of freedom. However, even though embracing differences is fundamental for freedom, simply acknowledging these differences is not sufficient to avoid domination. It is important to discern the origins of these differences.

In Confucian harmony, individual differences are primarily determined by one’s external social and political roles, rather than being grounded in one’s internal characteristics. Using individuals’ roles to regulate their behavior, without fully considering their inherent diversity, can lead to domination. According to the Analects, it is best to “let a ruler be a ruler, a minister be a minister, a father be a father, and a son be a son” (Ni 2017, p. 289).17 When the ruler, minister, father, son, and others all fulfill their roles, the ritual system functions effectively, leading to the realization of harmony. This is also generally understood as rectifying names (zhengming 正名).18 In the Analects, Confucius says that “when the names are rectified, people can know what they need to do or follow” (Ni 2017, p. 300).19 On the one hand, individuals conform to the names and further follow the whole ritual system, which is beneficial for social harmony. On the other hand, individuals’ characteristics and preferences are often overlooked when they are expected to conform to their designated roles. Even though, according to Roger Ames, role ethics may be more flexible than universal principles and considers different roles in specific situations (Ames 2011), roles are often ossified to the point that they do not adequately account for individual variabilities in the same role. The stereotype of how to be a father or a minister can come to dominate one’s thoughts and behaviors.

Furthermore, the sage-king harmonizes the whole society through the ritual20 and musical21 systems in this centralized way. The realization of Confucian harmony depends on the widespread acknowledgment and acceptance of such value systems in society. This provides the possibility for a shared understanding for different individuals. As David Wong says, a shared understanding can support accommodation: disagreeing parties can cooperate on the basis of a shared understanding that coexists with their differences (Wong 2020, pp. 148–51). Even though individuals in different roles may adopt different ethical approaches, these are still based on Confucian fundamental values.

Before exploring the relationship between seeking conformity and respecting differences in Zhuangzian harmony, it is essential to elaborate on the differences among individuals. Whereas Confucian texts often emphasize external division based on social roles, the Zhuangzi takes a different approach.22 It is mainly concerned with people’s distinct natural dispositions, or the differences in orientations found in all things. One way in which the text describes this is the reference to one’s internal Heavenly Transitions (tian ni天倪). Here, we find a basis for establishing harmony that takes a unique approach.

In the second chapter, Equalizing Assessments of Things (Qi Wu Lun 齐物论), it is said that harmonizing with others using their Heavenly Transitions implies that “‘right’ is also ‘not right’, and ‘so’ is also ‘not so’. If right were ultimately right, its differentiation from not right would admit of no debate. If ‘so’ were ultimately so, its differentiation from ‘not-so’ would admit of no debate” (Ziporyn 2020, p. 21). Harmonizing on the basis of “Heavenly Transitions” serves as a method to transcend the debate over what is right and wrong, what should be done and what should not. It is also in contrast to those who establish norms, demand adherence, and label those who deviate as incorrect. In this case, as Keqian Xu says, the Zhuangzi employs a dynamic and open view of persons and considers them as changing and unique beings rather than fixed and interchangeable “atoms” (K. Xu 2011, p. 445). In such “Heavenly Transitions”, the person can be open to a variety of transformations. Since it discards standards of what should or should not be, people are therefore freed from external human-made divisions in the ritual system and can stay relatively open.

The openness of the Heavenly Transitions as a way to distinguish between people is different from ritual divisions. First, this kind of distinction is made according to Heaven or Dao, instead of relying on humans and their rather narrow perspectives. Second, according to Brook Ziporyn’s translation of “tian ni 天倪” as “Heavenly Transitions”, instead of “Heavenly Equality” or “whetstone of Heaven”, “Transitions” suggests that these Heavenly distinctions are not settled but constantly transform over time. “Follow along with them in their limitless overflowing” (yin zhi yi man yan 因之以曼衍) also implies that such transitions are in a dynamic process. Individuals and their Heavenly Transitions will change incessantly. For the Zhuangzi, instead of sticking to fixed distinctions, it is essential to be open to the current distinctions with a open perspective that also includes the recognition of transformation and interconnectedness. Here, differences among persons mainly lie in the openness of their Heavenly Transitions, which not only differ from person to person but also change over time. Robert Allinson uses the butterfly dreams to elaborate on both internal transformation and external transformation (Allinson 1989). Brook Ziporyn uses the Kun-Peng story to elaborate on three intertwined themes that are at the heart of Zhuangzi’s project: transformation, dependence, and the limitations of perspectival knowledge (Ziporyn 2012).

According to the differences in the openness of people’s own Heavenly Transitions, the Zhuangzi advocates for an approach to harmonizing difference that is unique when compared to those advocated for in Mohism or Confucianism or in discussions of respect or tolerance as mentioned above. Harmonizing openness involves being open to aligning with others, and the various ways that they may align with one, while always noting that everyone is constituted by everyone else, and everyone always transforms.23 This necessarily loosens one’s grasp on one’s own values and makes one open to incorporating others. This type of harmonizing openness does not require that we endorse or embrace the standards of others in and of themselves. Instead, we employ them as a means of achieving harmony in a particular context. On the one hand, when a person harmonizes openness, they can directly incorporate the opinions of others as a shared consensus, promoting uniformity in the harmonization process. On the other hand, as harmonizing openness fully respects the differences among persons, there is no requirement for a universal consensus based on a specific value system, and this, therefore, leaves room for their own ways of flourishing.24

5. Conclusions

In addressing social conflicts across various dimensions and striving to achieve harmony, some level of unification—or at least consensus—is essential. However, this often comes at the expense of the diversity of persons. The current state of diversity among persons appears to pose challenges to the realization of social harmony. What we can learn from certain readings of philosophical ideas in the Zhuangzi, however, provides valuable intellectual resources to address this issue. Concentrating too much on diversity draws us to hone in on the differences between persons, overlooking the connections between them, as well as the possibilities for transformation and the influence of contingency. Resolving conflicts and achieving social harmony cannot rely solely on respecting differences. In more complex situations, it requires harmonizing all involved parties and finding a way that enables everyone to flourish. In this way, we can see how harmonizing openness contributes a novel approach to issues of diversity.

Regarding whether harmonizing openness exists in the absence of conflict or with some form of conflict, Zhuangzi would say that conflicts (physical conflicts in the social–political realm) can be addressed through harmonizing openness. However, one should not approach harmonizing with the specific purpose of resolving the conflict. This idea is illustrated in Chapter 4, where Confucius tries to teach Yan Hui to address the harm caused by the ruler of Wei to the state and its people, but Confucius emphasizes the need to “fast the mind” and let go of the belief that the state of Wei must be saved. This example especially shows how harmonizing openness works when others are hostile to one’s own existence.

This kind of harmonizing openness is not simply about agreeing and aligning with others or disagreeing and tolerating them; it is about a deeper, dynamic process of transformation. Tolerance implies that one may not agree with others but can still accept or respect them, while the harmonizing openness of Zhuangzi suggests that, at a certain point, one can align with or use another’s approach to transform others in the harmonizing process.