In this episode, we delve into Chapter 80 of the Daodejing, one of the most vivid portraits of Daoist social ideals. We unpack its vision of a “simple agrarian utopia,” where people live in small communities, ignore labor-saving tools, and resist the endless chase for more. Along the way, we discuss political minimalism, technological restraint, contentment in daily life, and radical localism, asking what it would mean to be satisfied even while knowing other or “better” possibilities exist. We reflect on our own consumerist culture, and probe whether Daoist utopia is naive, radical, or unexpectedly wise for our time.
Key passages
Daodejing, chapter 80, Daoist Utopia
Section 1, “Political Minimalism”
小國寡民。
Reduce the size of the state;
Lessen the population.
Section 2, “Technological and Social Restraint”
使有什伯之器而不用；使民重死而不遠徙。雖有舟輿，無所乘之，雖有甲兵，無所陳之。使民復結繩而用之，
Make sure that even though there are labor-saving tools, they are never used. Make sure that the people look upon death as a weighty matter and never move to distant places. Even though they have ships and carts, they will have no use for them. Even though they have armor and weapons, they will have no reason to deploy them. Make sure that the people return to the use of the knotted cord.
Section 3, “Contentment and Simplicity in Daily Life”
甘其食，美其服，安其居，樂其俗。
Make their food savory,
Their clothes fine,
Their houses comfortable,
Their lives happy.
Section 4, “Radical Localism and Peace”
鄰國相望，雞犬之聲相聞，民至老死，不相往來。
Then even though neighboring states are within sight of each other,
Even though they can hear the sounds of each other’s dogs and chickens,
Their people will grow old and die without ever having visited one another.
(Daodejing 80, Philip J. Ivanhoe’s translation)
Sources and phrases mentioned
- Plato, the Phaedrus
- Jonathan Haidt, “Get Phones Out of Schools Now“
- Laozi 老子 (Lao Tzu)
- Philip J. Ivanhoe, The Daodejing of Laozi – see the introduction for Ivanhoe’s discussion of the Daoist “primitive agrarian utopia”
- “The grass is always greener on the other side” (an English expression)
- wàiguó de yuèliàng bǐjiào yuán 外國的月亮比較圓 (“The moon is rounder in foreign states”)
- Mohism 墨家 (the school of thought attributed to Mozi 墨子)
- The Bamboo Texts of Guodian 郭店楚簡 (excavated texts that includes earlier versions of the Daodejing)
- The Mawangdui Silk Texts 馬王堆帛書 (later excavated texts that also include earlier versions of the Daodejing)
- Mozi 墨子, chapter 25 (takes it as a premise that families and states always want or reasonably want more people)
- Hedonic treadmills
- Amish culture
- Alienation from the products of one’s labor
- gān qí shí 甘其食 (“make their food savory”)
- The “causative reading” of gān 甘 in gān qí shí 甘其食: “make their food savory” (requires something of the food)
- The “putative reading” of gān 甘 in gān qí shí 甘其食: “treat/regard the food as savory” (requires something of the eater)
- Zhuangzi, chapter 10, paraphrases the closing lines of chapter 80 (about the hearing the dogs and chickens)
- Byung-Chul Han, Hyperculture
- Heshang Gong 河上公 commentary (influential religious commentary on the Daodejing)
- Wang Bi 王弼 commentary (influential philosophical commentary on the Daodejing)
- Rumspringa (a rite of passage in some Amish communities)
- Informed contentment vs. naive contentment (also, “deep contentment” vs. naive contentment)
- Daodejing 道德經, chapter 71 (implicitly distinguishes between informed ignorance and naive ignorance)
- Cheng Xuanying 成玄英 (fl. 631–655, wrote an influential Tang-dynasty commentary on the Daodejing)
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden
- Plato, Republic (distinguishes between the “healthy city” and the “feverish city”)
- Glaucon (character in the Republic)
- zhī zú 知足 (“knowing the sufficient,” “knowing what’s enough”)
- hobbits
As always, another excellent episode of the podcast. Starting from a close reading of a small passage works so much better than general introductions about “the” Laozi or “the” Daoism, although there is of course an audience for that too. Two points for discussion.
Firstly, the translation of 小國寡民。You agree with Ivanhoe’s translation: ‘Reduce the size of the state; lessen the population.’ The question is how this perspective relates to the fact that the text mentions 天下 61 times (in 31 of the 81 verses). Does Heshang Gong’s commentary (to which you do refer) perhaps offer a better way of understanding this passage as an administrative approach that advocates small-scale units within the entire “empire” and an approach in which much is decentralized so that the people do much themselves (including the normally centralized administrative work): 自然. This also offers more points of reference to make chapter 80 relevant to his (and our) time. Perhaps Laozi refers to the early Zhou period, when there were some 200 mostly small (city) states, which (in accordance with the principles of chapter 61) could then form a peaceful coexistence – but a CO-existence nonetheless. Even in his time, a small state à la 桃花源 was not a realistic possibility. And perhaps it would be the presence of the greater whole (rather than the characteristics of the population of the small “states”) that would ensure that weapons although present would not be used.
The second point of discussion concerns the assessment of the Utopia. In general, the reception of the text appreciates the peaceful, Arcadian community described in the chapter. But is that justified? Who is it that reduces the size of the state and lessens the population? By what means is the population reduced? And do the people have a say in this? This continues throughout the rest of the chapter. Who is the one who causes 使 all these ‘blessings’ to occur in this Utopia? Do the people (all the people?) of this small state participate of their own free will? It is possible, as the example of the Amish shows, but they have their faith as a strong binding factor that makes it easier to renounce worldly pleasures. Laozi offers no comparable religion or ideology. And what if someone does not participate; does then this rule from chapter 74 come into effect: 吾得持而殺之孰敢? In short, a dark interpretation of utopia is also possible. Paul Goldin is by this verse reminded of North Korea (2020, p. 125) and Lafleur sees it ending in a regime like that of the Khmer Rouge (who ruled Cambodia with a reign of terror between 1975 and 1979) (2024, p. 10). She reads 使民重死 as a reference to terrorizing the population with the death penalty (p. 173), while it is generally believed to mean that life is so pleasant in this small state that death is not appealing.
Sources:
Goldin, Paul R. (2020), The Art of Chinese Philosophy: Eight Classical Texts and How to Read Them, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lafleur, Bernadette (ed., 2024), The Canon of Ways and Their Influence (Daodejing): A politically oriented translation, Independently published. While Goldin is more nuanced, Lafleur presents a very dark and negative view of the Laozi which is interesting because it is quite unique and Laozi humself does not object to some darkness: 知其白守其黑為天下式 (chapter 28).
Wow, great comments, Carlo! I think it’s well worth considering the “dark side” of the Laozi’s political vision. To a certain extent, the text leaves open the possibility that rulers may pursue ruthless means to bring about the political ideal. Chapter 74 is arguably good evidence for that. As I recall, Hagop Sarkissian registers similar worries in this paper. Interestingly, Bai Tongdong (in chapter five of this book) reads chapter 80 as an illustration of the Laozi’s non-ideal theory. He thinks that reducing the size of the state and shrinking the populations is meant to be a means to bring about the utopia and not the utopia itself.
In a separate conversation with Misha Tadd, he pointed out to me that the Heshang Gong commentary reads like it’s adjusting its interpretation of chapter 80 to meet the demands of empire. A commentary that literally recommended that rulers keep their states small and independent wouldn’t have gotten much traction in the Han dynasty!
I don’t really see it through the lens of utopia which is a teleological end-point. I see it as the proposition “do X and Y to achieve Z”. Where Z is a more content and peaceful existence with others. It’s more of a starting point towards something potentially much greater rather than the ideal end point. It’s a model in contention with the status quo of the day which clearly brought about sorrow and violence. It’s a “state” where the state plays almost no role. An ambiguous place in between state and statelessness.
If we take the cosmic vision of the Lao Zi as primary, then I think statelessness is closer to the ideal goal than is chapter 80.
Very interesting! I’m open to the idea that chapter 80 doesn’t describe the end-point but a kind of transitional political order. Hard to say. Still, it does seem to qualify as utopian in the sense that it holds up a lofty ideal which hard-nosed political “realists” would find implausible on realist grounds. I really like the point about the minimal — almost vanishing — role of the state. That seems very much in keeping with the DDJ’s political vision more broadly.
My sense of this chapter is that it is advocating the here and now and personal– making the most of your current local surroundings and personal skills instead of grasping for cosmopolitan culture and empire building. In modern terms, it would advocate DIY handicrafts, home repairs, making your own clothes and cooking from scratch, and above all doing these things well, enjoying the work and being content with the results.
All of these things are still valued today, in fact they are considered luxuries few can afford (in the city; in rural places they are more common and affordable. I live in Vermont, which may shape my view.)
One reason for this approach, then and now, is to cultivate individual and group creativity. I love the technology of writing, too, but writing did not create stories and philosophy, of course; the Illiad and Odyssey were oral traditions, as was Gilgamesh, much of the Christian Bible, and the Daodejing.
What writing did was to fix the stories and the ideas in one form (one of the 10,000 things, not the protean Dao per ch. 1) In an oral tradition, each teller adds their twist, and the evolving story absorbs all of these twists into a collective record. In written culture, we fetishize that one original manifestation (eg Homer’s telling of the Illiad) in the name of celebrating the creativity of the individual author, but the result is a professionalization that reduces the confidence and writing skill of everyone else. I don’t know exactly how knotted cords worked, but presumably they were un-knottted and re-used, like an abacus; in contrast we stillvhave written receipts from ancient Sumer for meaningless transactions millennia past.
Technology, in this reading, is problematic (if sometimes necessary) because it fixes one method of accomplishing a task, discouraging creativity and innovation by individuals tackling a task themselves.
I admire this interpretation. It calls attention to a feature of the Daoist utopia that I hadn’t fully appreciated, which I’m tempted to call “collective creativity.” And it also presents a kind of utopianism that isn’t so obviously problematic as others, because lesser approximations of the utopia are both somewhat realistic and of some value or benefit compared with the status quo.