Origins of "Politics"

A:

Politics “政治”, literally, means governing a country through policies. I looked into it—the Chinese term “政治” (zhengzhi) can be traced back to the pre-Qin period. In the Book of Documents (Shangshu: Zhou Guan), it is written: “The gains and losses of the government are knowable.” In Classical Chinese, “政” means to govern or manage state affairs. Terms like administration and governing all stem from this idea: the act of managing a nation and implementing state policies. The character “治” implies bringing order and stability. In other words, when disorder arises, when people are starving, when resentment spreads, when the population is unhappy—these are signs that governance must improve. It implies coordinating resources, managing personnel and strategies, and facilitating national development.

So “政治” (politics) in its original Chinese sense is a concrete practice of coordination, planning, and organizing—whether in a sovereign state, republic, or empire—not an abstract discipline. It is a field requiring competence, judgment, prioritization, and experience. It demands highly specific talents.

In contrast, the English word “politics” comes from the Greek word polis (πόλις), meaning city-state; politikos (πολιτικός) means “pertaining to the affairs of the city-state,” that is, the governance of public affairs. Aristotle’s Politics (Πολιτικά) literally means “the knowledge of civic affairs.” The etymology of “politics” emphasizes citizen participation in governing the polis. It is fundamentally about public involvement: everyone has a right, everyone has a voice, and everyone engages in deliberation. Rights, duties, and responsibilities are meant to be distributed among all citizens—though, of course, “citizens” at that time excluded women, minors, and slaves.

B:

In China, ““政治”” has always been the art of the ruler. From the pre-Qin era to the Qing dynasty, Chinese political tradition was built on top-down governance, from the monarch to the bureaucracy to the common people. It was not about equality, coordination, or resource allocation. It always contained the idea of looking down from above.

In Confucianism, the path to legitimacy lies in “cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world.” Rule is legitimized by heavenly mandate or moral tradition. Legalist thinker Han Feizi, on the other hand, emphasized rule of law—or rather, the unity of law, strategy, and power. To him, politics was about control and manipulation. The ruler should not preach virtue and compassion but should suppress human nature through law, prevent betrayal through secretive strategy, and intimidate officials through power. Frankly, Han Feizi might’ve been a master of psychological manipulation.

The Book of Rites (Liji) emphasized governing through ritual. In it, “ritual” does not only refer to religious ceremonies, but encompasses the entire system of familial ethics, social hierarchy, political order, and behavioral norms. While working on the film Creation of the Gods, I learned about many of these rituals—complicated and extravagant. Sacrifices involved dozens or even hundreds of instruments, and the garments alone were excessively elaborate. Ritual here was seen as a bridge between heaven and humanity, a way to maintain cosmic and social order.

The political idea at the heart of Liji is that a well-functioning society should not rely on punishment or laws, but on people’s conscious adherence to hierarchy, boundaries, and decorum. But to me, this sounds completely detached from reality. How could people follow all these rules on their own accord? How can society be expected to function under such an elaborate system of rituals, which wastes so much time and kills efficiency? If everyone’s entangled in ceremonial behavior, who’s actually getting work done? Japan, clearly, inherited quite a bit of this.

Though today China also employs rule by man, by urban management, or even by firewall, the concept of “politics” in Chinese never included citizenship in its original form. It was about commoners and officials, about governance from above, not public participation. That’s why when we say “the economic base determines the superstructure,” what we’re really saying is: the foundation of the economy determines the structure above. Whether the economy is doing well has little to do with those outside the ruling class. For ordinary people, self-sufficiency can be a happy life. The economic base does not necessarily determine the “middle” or “lower” structures of society.

C:

The “polis” in politics refers to a space for free citizens to directly participate in political life. Consider words like:
• Metropolis — “metro” means mother, i.e., central or primary city
• Megalopolis — “mega” means large or expansive
• Cosmopolis — a global or international city
• Minneapolis — “mini” comes from the Dakota language meaning “water,” hence the city of Minnesota

From the Roman Republic through the Enlightenment to the modern day, the core ideas in Western politics are popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and representative democracy. Aristotle said: “Man is a political animal,” meaning humans must live in public life, using reason and dialogue to build a community. (Again, this did not include women, minors, or slaves.)

Politics involves power struggles, ideological persuasion, and people with influence swaying public opinion for personal or group interest. In ancient Greece, those who did not participate in politics were called idiotēs (private person), a term that evolved into “idiot”—a fool. Under such a system, if you don’t participate, someone else will make decisions for you, and yes, choosing not to engage in public affairs does seem rather foolish.

D:

In contrast, Chinese politics is about who wins and who loses, who seizes power, and who can be overthrown at any time. To become the ruler means to stand “above all others but one.” My parents, for instance, fully buy into this system. They don’t care how a ruler comes to power—whether by purging rivals, betraying allies, suppressing dissent, or brainwashing the public. As long as the central leadership, represented by the chairman, maintains overall balance without disturbing the privilege-holding elite, everything is “stable.”

When the central government cannot handle something, vague slogans, directives, or ideology are used to offload responsibilities to local governments. This might work in a small country, but for China—with its massive population, geographic size, cultural and linguistic diversity—this is probably not an optimal strategy. The administrative cost is massive, with 100 million Party members participating in governance, and yet… it’s unclear how well things are really governed.