Role of physical activity and fitness on

Though no definitive conception of freedom of speech or expression emerges in Chinese political thought until the latter part of the nineteenth century from the First Opium War in 1839 (Hucker, 1975; Feuerwerker, Murphey & Wright, 1967; Hsü, 1971), Chinese ancient history does shed some important light on the significance of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled and the appropriate behaviour of both rulers and the ruled in respect to speech and expression. Both of these theories can be seen in terms of a debate concerning the subject’s right to speak against the authority of the ruling elite without punitive sanction. In other words, both of these ideas signal attempts to reign in ruling power and ensure that dissent was managed effectively.

The notion of divine theory relates to the legitimacy and authority of the ruler over their subjects to control and discipline critics. Often those who spoke out against tyranny or unjust rule were harshly punished and sanctioned. For example, King Zhόu (? – c. 1046 BC) of the Shang dynasty (c. 1600–1046 BC), portrayed as a heinous and debauched tyrant, sentenced to death those who dared to criticise his lavish and corrupt lifestyle. The principle of divine theory was an attempt by intellectuals to reign in the ultimate power of rulers by suggesting that punishing dissenters was an act of blasphemy and an insult to the gods (Sima, 1969). Crushing dissent or criticism was an insubordination of the principle of kind-heartedness and justice; and rulers who committed such acts might be condemned and punished by the gods which might also potentially result in their earthly

57

downfall. Ancient Chinese intellectuals therefore used this principle of divinity to constrain the absolute authority of the ruler and encourage kind-heartedness and justice.

In contrast, the sagacious ruler knows how to take criticism and listen to advice from his people (Sima, 1969; Hsu, 1971)

The divine theory used the rulers’ fear of their own downfall to prevent their suppression of the right to speak. However, it had two downsides. Firstly, the process of constraining the power of rulers was extremely time-consuming (Lu, 1933: p. 13). Secondly, the divine theory might only be effective if the ruler was either sagacious, ambitious, or at least sensible (Sima, 1969). A sagacious ruler would know the importance of taking advice and listening to criticism. An ambitious and sensible ruler might have a perspective of the overall situation and restrain himself for the sake of his own dominance. Principally, the practice of this theory was highly reliant on the personal judgement of imperial rulers to be effective. The hereditary feudal system could not guarantee that every king in a dynasty possessed the precious characteristics, such as sagaciousness, ambition, or sensibility (Lu, 1933: pp. 13, 14).

The channelling theory was another significant school of thought that intellectuals used to constrain the authority of the ruling class. The term of ‘channellisation’ was firstly used by Zhao-Hu (dates of birth and death unknown; c. 841 BC), a minister of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BC) at the time of the Citizens’ Riot in 841 BC, as he compared the right to speak with a form of natural phenomenon, by stating that banning people’s speech was as dangerous as blocking the water of a flood (Lu., 1993), and he proclaimed that channelling people’s resentment of the ruling class was a preferable solution for solving

58

political crisis, i.e. that rulers should grant people the right to criticise them, in order to assuage people’s negative emotions, such as hatred and resentment, and to prevent the downfall of imperial governance.

Channelisation theory also seeks to emphasise certain limits to executive power. However, instead of attempting to set up a divine sanction for rulers who did not allow subjects a voice, this theory states that rather than prohibiting people from speaking out against unjust rule, people should be encouraged to ‘channel’ their energies in ways that can be managed by the authorities. In this way social stability, an important element of Chinese political culture could remain intact.

The channelling theory regarded the power of dictatorship as being superior to the right to speak, which could be limited by the will of a ruler. It granted that the ruler had the power to either allow or disallow people to criticise or give advice. The sole purpose of allowing the existence of criticism and the right to speak for people was to maintain the dominant status of the ruling class. Without questioning the irrationality of brutal censorship, it was therefore people’s right to speak, regarded as the product of a ruler’s benefaction (Schafer, 1951: pp. 133–8). Yet the channellisation theory failed to provide explicit guidelines, to demonstrate to the ruler how and where exactly these negative emotions could be channelled.

Traces of this sentiment can be seen in how gatekeepers and censors rationalise their activities. Arguably, this principle, also known as the mechanism of guiding public

59

opinion (Pan & Chan, 2005) or “… to eliminate instabilities” in order to maintain social stability (ibid., 2005; de Burgh, 2003), represents the core principle guiding censorship in online news media in China. The news is presented in a way by which the public opinion can be efficiently guided and channelled, favourable to the Chinese authorities.

Lam even argued that this may be seen as a form of “heavy-handed manipulation of media”

(2000: p. 37). The legacy of channellisation, which is also commonly seen in the production process of online news media, will be analysed in Chapter 5: 5.3 and Chapter 6: 4.2.