A Comparative Study of Chinese Tongbian Thinking  and Western Analogical Reasoning

Scholars have long noticed differences between the “typical” modes of Chinese and Western thinking, with the Chinese tradition usually being described as “correlative” or “analogical,” while the Western tradition is labeled “rational” or “causal.” However, even as a generalization, such a statement requires further qualification, since Western scientism has become the dominant mode of reasoning only in the last three centuries or so. In the Western world, there is a longstanding practice of using analogical or correlative reasoning in order to support an idea, which at first glance may seem similar to Chinese correlative (tongbian 通变) thinking. This article will examine the evidence of correlative thinking within the Western proto-scientific tradition in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and theology and compare these types of analogical reasoning with the Chinese tongbian tradition. Many instances of so-called correlative or analogical thinking in the West turn out, upon deeper inspection, to be causal reasoning in a correlative guise. The Chinese tradition will be used throughout as a counterpoint to show that even when the two traditions appear to overlap in reasoning styles, one must be extremely careful not to overstate the similarities.

To clarify the discussion, it would be instructive to provide examples of the styles of thinking discussed in this article. Analogical or correlative thinking and casual thinking have been identified by David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames (1995) as the first and second problematics, respectively (Hall and Ames, Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, p. xvii). The terms were never strictly defined in the text so that these general modes of reasoning could apply to multiple thinkers. The first problematic is characterized by seeking an “account for states of affairs by appeal to correlative procedures rather than by determining agencies or principles.” (Hall and Ames, Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, p. xviii) An example of this would be a horoscope reading, as there are correlative principles at work in what makes the horoscope supposedly accurate. This thinking is often marked by the use of analogy in discussing how the world both is and ought to be. The term “analogy” in the Western tradition derives from the Greek αναλογια (analogia), which originally denoted a mathematical proportion or a ratio. Thus, different items with similar structures correlate to each other in the same way that corresponding sides of similar triangles form equal ratios.

David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames,

Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture

The authors labeled the second problematic “causal thinking,” by which they mean a commitment to the world having some sort of internal order or structure given to it by some “agency of construal.” As a result of this internal order, the entire world is “grounded in, and ultimately determined by, these agents of construal.” (Hall and Ames, Anticipating China: Thinking Through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, p. xvii) An example of causal thinking might be watching one billiard ball hit another and thinking that the entire situation is a result of the interaction of the balls and the laws inherent in the world itself. Causal reasoning often seeks a prior event to explain a state of affairs, privileging the sequence of events rather than the set of all current events. In causal reasoning, the set of all current events is irrelevant to explaining how an event occurred—some of those events have no causal relation to the event under discussion.

Neither the Chinese tradition nor the Western tradition uses a single mode of reasoning, nor are these examples of modes of reasoning exhaustive. On the contrary, each tradition utilizes both analogical and causal methods of reasoning, though each prefers one form to the other. It is the contention of this article that the “analogical” or correlative” thinking in the two traditions is not strictly the same and, upon closer inspection, they do not share much in common as forms of reasoning. While some of the examples seem at first glance to support the claim that Western analogical thinking and Chinese tongbian thinking are similar, the vast number of differences make it unhelpful to think of them as such.

As it is impossible to give an accurate overview of an entire philosophical tradition, especially in an article of this length, I have made several choices about which texts from each tradition to compare. In the Chinese tradition, correlative texts from the Yijing 易经 (or Book of Changes) and the Lüshi Chunqiu 吕氏春秋 (or Annals of Lü Buwei) have been chosen, since each of these texts demonstrates reasoning in terms of correspondences within an entire state of affairs. The Western tradition will receive the majority of the attention in this paper to contend that in several different guises, analogical reasoning in the West is not the same as Chinese tongbian thinking.

John Knoblock and Jeffrey Riegel,

The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study

Analogical Thinking in Chinese TongbianTradition

Recorded Chinese thought as early as the Spring and Autumn period was marked by correlative thinking. This trend, exemplified in works such as the Yijing, was eventually combined with five elements (wuxing 五行) cosmology during the Warring States period and early Han dynasty, leading to the construction of elaborate correlative systems. We will begin by analyzing one of the oldest correlative tongbian texts in the Chinese tradition, the Yijing, and then consider the much later Lüshi Chunqiu. Although the correlative systems in the texts are not identical, each uses a similar conceptual model in order to think about the world and inform human action.

The Chinese have utilized tongbian style analogical thinking since the beginning of their recorded history, as evidenced by the oracle bone inscriptions. According to Tian Chenshan 田辰山, tongbian thinking imagined the world as “correlations” expressing a sort of “continuity through change.” (Tian, Chinese Dialectics: From Yijing to Marxism, p. 23) These correlations were often seen as patterns of relationships that mutually informed each other. Thus, meaningful analogies could be drawn up from seemingly disparate realms of knowledge within a given circumstance. Discourses that often appear arbitrary and non-causal to the Western mind actually follow patterns of analogy and likeness.

In the commentary on the Yijing, the author, supposedly Confucius, writes:

Things that accord in tone vibrate together. Things that have affinity in their inmost natures seek one another. Water flows to what is wet, fire turns to what is dry. Clouds follow the dragon, wind follows the tiger. Thus the sage rises, and all creatures follow him with their eyes. What is born of heaven feels related to what is above. What is born of earth feels related to what is below. Each follows its kind. (Wilhelm and Baynes, The I Ching or Book of Changes, p. 382)

Richard Wilhelm and Cary F. Baynes,

The I Ching or Book of Changes

This text provides a brief rationale as to how the correlative world operates: the world is naturally divided into non-permanent groups that mutually influence each other. The operation of yin 阴 and yang 阳 forces forms the very basis of Yijing divination. In the pages of the Yijing, a sort of cosmic resonance is supposed to tie yin things together and yang things together. See Table 1 for examples of basic yin/yang relations:

Table 1.

In these yin/yang relations, items from different categories (gender, astronomy, weather, etc.) are drawn together in patterns of mystical relation. Thus, patterns of yin and yang run through everything and so influence the flux and flow of the whole world. This is presumably how the Yijing itself works: the oracle tells you which yin and yang forces are prevailing/retreating at the very moment of divination. As nothing is separate or completely distinct from everything else, the Yijing reveals the hidden correlations of the world, which, as a divination tool, prepares people for appropriate action.

Another correlative way to think about the world in ancient China stemmed from the popularity of the Five Elements school of thought. The five elements were often paired with other sets of fives in correlative relationships. The Heguanzi 鹖冠子, largely a later Warring States period text, clearly describes the correlated sets of fives:

五行，业也。五政，道也；五音，调也；五声，故也；五味，事也。赏罚，约也。

Five agents (metal, wood, water, fire, soil) are for enterprises. Five governances are for the Way (morality). Five tones (keys) are for modulations (promotion/demotion?). Five sounds (scale) are for fixed precedents (social ranks?). Five flavours (foods=salaries?) are for employments (work). Five [rewards and] monetary fines are for contracts. (Marnix Wells, Heguanzi, the Dao of Unity, p. iii.a.)

Heguanzi, Heguanzi

Not only are there natural sets of five for all these dissimilar categories, other early texts describe correlative relations that exist between the categories. The Lüshi Chunqiu, for instance, describes patterned relationships that run through the fabric of the universe in order to inform the actions of rulers. According to Chen Qiyou 陈奇猷 (1984) in his Lüshi Chunqiu Xinshi 吕氏春秋新释, “the Lüshi Chunqiu correlates certain days of the month, scaly animals, the musical note jue, sour tastes, and the number eight, but it also recommends surveying the land to set the boundaries of fields (so that conflicts are settled before planting begins), bans killing young animals and destroying eggs (so as to avoid shortages later), and forbids conscripting groups for war or major construction (so that they have time to plant the fields).” In fact, much of the advice given by the Lüshi Chunqiu is based on these very cosmological correspondences that enable a ruler to act in a manner consistent with the current state of the world. Thus, elaborate correlative patterns are drawn from dissimilar areas of life (music, diet, governance, farming, etc.) into a grand, unified whole based on the five elements cosmology.

Analogical Thinking in Western Philosophical Tradition

Though the Western tradition prioritized causal/linear reasoning to analogical/correlative reasoning, analogical reasoning was never absent. As previously discussed, many thinkers made use of analogies to make themselves clear. In order to show how Western correlative thinking is different from Chinese tongbian-style reasoning, we must first look at how analogical thinking was predominantly used in the West. To detail the birth of analogical thinking, we will turn to Plato and Aristotle. Although each thinker used the term analogia primarily in its initial mathematical sense, both made arguments resting on analogy, as we shall see.

Statue of Plato

Plato is often touted as a prophet of reason in the Western tradition and the great originator of Western philosophical discourse. However, Plato’s writings often utilize analogical reasoning to make an argument. For instance, the entirety of Plato’s discussion on the tripartite soul in The Republic began with the curious notion that there is some sort of correspondence between the ideal city and the ideal person. The analogy was never explicitly justified in the text, but it formed the basis for much of what came after Book 4, including the famous allegory of the cave. This correspondence between the well-adjusted human and the body politic was continued after Plato, and even modern parlance continues to refer to certain “heads of state.” The state-as-body allegory seems to have been largely abandoned in political philosophy after the state-of-nature theory gained popularity with the writing of Hobbes and Locke. After Hobbes, the origin and health of the state could be justified in terms of some primordial event or set of affairs rather than a loose analogy to the human body.

Aristotle, on the other hand, made far less frequent use of allegory, and his understanding of the four elements provided a solid basis for causal reasoning in the Western tradition. Despite this, there still are several instances in which Aristotle argued in what appears to be an allegorical manner. In considering politics, Aristotle grouped different political systems more categorically than his predecessor Plato. See Table 2 for how Aristotle grouped different political systems.

Table 2.

In The Politics, Aristotle saw a correspondence between the three “perverted” forms of government and the “true” forms of government. However, Aristotle’s corresponding political systems were not the same as Lü Buwei’s 吕不韦 correspondences between nature and the ruler, where there is some pattern between the two. Aristotle’s corresponding government types are correspondences of form, and thus we would expect the internal structures to causally affect the outcome because of relevant features. Aristotle’s correspondences were therefore not the same as Plato’s, where Plato perceived some sort of correspondence/ analogy between the body and the state. Why there should be such a tight analogy is never explicitly justified, whereas in Aristotle’s writing, the grounds for the correspondence between Monarchy and Tyranny were implicitly justified as each government shared a common feature, viz., a single ruler.

When other later philosophers used correlative reasoning or constructed analogies, they typically followed Plato’s example. Analogies were often stories or pictures that bore some resemblance to another topic under consideration. As in Plato’s cave, certain parts of the analogy corresponded with the true topic under discussion (shadows : receptacle world :: Sun : The Form of the Good). Most of the analogical reasoning, however, was piecemeal or utilized on a case-by-case basis. While it would be unjust to characterize the Western philosophical tradition as mere footnotes to Aristotle and Plato, their influence was almost omnipresent, at least until the early modern age. From the time of Descartes onward, however, philosophical reasoning was generally marked by even more causal thinking and less analogical thinking, so much so that what little analogical thinking remained could scarcely be noticed.

Analogical Thinking in the Hippocratic Tradition

Hippocrates has been described as the “father of [Western] medicine” because he and those influenced by him dominated the medical discourse until the early modern age. In his work, he proposed a theory of four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. His student Polybius then correlated the four humors with the four seasons:spring, summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. These humors required balance and the proper medical treatment depended in part on the time of year. It was not until hundreds of years later, in the writings of Galen, that the four elements (water, fire, air, and earth) were added to the medical discourse, as well as the four elementary qualities (wet, hot, dry, and cold). Finally, Galens’ followers added the four temperaments (phlegmatic, sanguine, bilious, and melancholic), which completed the corresponding sets of fours derived from medicine, astronomy, chemistry, and psychology (Jacques Jouanna, Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, p. 335). This unified system became the dominant view of nature and human health in the Western world throughout the Middle Ages. The resulting correspondences can be clearly seen in a later text called On the Constitution of the Universe and of Man:

Portrait of Hippocrates

How does it occur that amongst men, some are gracious, laugh and make jokes, others are sad, with a sombre air and doleful, others are quick-tempered, bitter and given to anger, others indolent, hesitant and pusillanimous? The cause is this, based on the elements:

1.Those who are composed of very pure blood are always friendly, joke and laugh; regarding their bodies, they are rose-tinted, slightly red and have pretty skin.

2.Those who are composed of yellow bile are quick-tempered, bitter, daring; regarding their bodies, they are greenish and have yellow skin.

3.Those who are composed of black bile are indolent , pusillanimous and sickly; regarding their bodies, they have black eyes and black hair.

4.Those who are composed of phlegm are despondent, forgetful; regarding their bodies, they have white hair. (Jouanna, Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, p. 342)

Jacques Jouanna, Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen

This sort of reasoning seems to have been very common among the physicians who followed in the tradition of Galen and Hippocrates throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Some authors took this system of correspondences even further, as shown in a Latin text, Vindician’s Letter to His Young Child Pentadius. In this text, the four seasons and four times of day were added to the system of the four elements, four humors, and four temperaments:

These four humours are divided amongst each other day and night. Blood dominates for six hours, i.e. after the ninth hour of the night until the third hour of the day; then yellow bile dominates after the third hour until the ninth hour. Black bile dominates after the ninth hour of the day until the third hour of the night. Phlegm dominates after the third hour of the night until the ninth hour of the night… (Jouanna, Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen, p. 351)

At this point, it would be very tempting to compare traditional Western medical theories with the Chinese tongbian thinking described above on the basis of corresponding sets of fours/corresponding sets of fives. The eminent sinologist Angus Graham, in his ground-breaking book, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China, briefly mentioned the similarities between the Chinese and Western categories. In considering Lüshi Chunqiu’s corresponding sets of fives, Graham noted:

Western medicine for some two thousand years used the same sort of correlations to explain the seasonal variations of diseases, as already in the Hippocratic Nature of Man (c. 400 B.C.).

This system relates to the Four Elements as the Chinese to the Five Processes, with ‘fire/water’ correlating with ‘summer/winter’ in both:

(Graham, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China, p. 354)

A. C. Graham, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China

Upon closer inspection, however, the corresponding relationships between the four elements, humors, moods, seasons, and so on, are not the same as the tongbian thinking in the Chinese tradition. The Galenic tradition of medicine insists on causal relations between all of the sets of four—that is, the sets are causally related, not analogically. For example, the generation of a specific humor is due to the characteristics of the current season and whether the season is hot/dry/wet/cold. Likewise, if we consider the four temperaments, the moods are causally affected by the imbalance of the humors, which would imply that a change to an individual’s humoric composition would necessarily result in a change in mood. So there are limits to the Galenic sets of fours, and while they do correspond to each other, they correspond causally, not analogically.

While at first glance, the patterns of fours in the Western traditions and the sets of fives in the Chinese tradition seem to emerge from a similar place of analogical reasoning, a careful reading of the Western texts suggests that such relations are more properly causal ones that carry across various domains. We will now turn to a different field of inquiry in the Western tradition that also seemingly makes use of analogical thinking.

Analogical Thinking in Western Theological Traditions

In the Western world, both Jewish and Christian exegetes practiced a wide variety of interpretive methods. In Alexandria, where Jewish and Christian communities mingled, Origen described three methods of biblical interpretation which were later standardized into four hermeneutical methods. The quadriga, as the fourfold method became known, included the literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical approaches to a passage. These four methods were popular not only in the Middle Ages, but also well into the Renaissance and early modern era.

The quadriga is relevant to our present purpose because it dominated Western exegesis of religious texts for over a thousand years until German scholars pioneered historical-critical methods in the 18th century and Americans turned to literal exegesis in the 20th century. In the process of exegesis, readers were encouraged to see patterns of similarity or relation in texts that were not strictly related. In the Christian tradition, the apostle Paul himself uses a correlative reading in Galatians 4:21:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (The English Standard Version Study Bible)

The point here is that Paul saw a parallel between two women, two locations, and two covenants, and so he treated them correlatively, that there are mutual correspondences between the categories. In essence, Paul was comparing radically dissimilar categories that were supposed to mutually elucidate each other. The juxaposed pairs are listed in Table 3.

Table 3.

While this list doesn’t seem to be exhaustive, it does demonstrate that Paul used allegorical reasoning to correlate unrelated things (covenants, locations, status as freeperson/slave, etc.) into a scheme that fit his vision of the Christian message. This type of reasoning appears several times throughout the Christian New Testament, usually to extract some sort of hidden meaning or significance from the Hebrew Bible.

Patristic fathers such as Clement, Origen, Augustine, and others continued the tradition of correlative allegorizing inherited from Paul. We shall use just one further example here, although dozens of examples of analogical thinking could be found in their texts. In commenting on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) Origen asserted that:

The Good Samaritan is Jesus Christ. The man who is attacked on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho represents those who have sinned voluntarily, those men who wanted to be on the road. The wounds inflicted on the man represent vices and sins. The priest who comes along the road stands for the Jewish Law and the Lévite for the Prophets…The inn is the Church, which welcomes all and refused help to none. The two pence represent the knowledge of the Father and the Son, and the innkeeper the angel of the Church. (Leslie W. Barnard 1982, “To Allegorize or not to Allegorize?”)

Here we can see that Origen’s interpretation gives new correspondent meanings to a story supposedly told by Jesus. As with Paul’s correlative argument, Origen makes correspondences between people, locations, and so on. For Origen, there existed a sort of narrative correspondence between the parable and the true meaning. Table 4 provides a brief summary of Origen’s set of corresponding items.

Table 4. Original Story: Deeper Meaning

As with Paul’s allegorical reasoning, all sorts of correlative relations are “allowed” without much interpretive authority being given to the original text or author. Neither of these interpretations was strictly supported in the original texts that both Origen and Paul interpreted; rather, each correlatively fitted the story into their prefabricated worldview. The allegorical method of interpretation became extremely common in Jewish and Christian exegesis and could be found in theological writings throughout the Middle Ages and even into contemporary times, although to a much lesser extent.

However, if we stop to inspect both Paul and Clement carefully, we can see that their methods of making correlations were not the same as the typical Chinese cases as illustrated in the Lüshi Chunqiu or the Yijing. In the Chinese cases, a generally agreed set of rules or system governs the correlations that can be made across categories (colors, tastes, tones, etc.). Chinese tongbian thinking follows a stronger hermeneutical framework, though correlations of any type are allowed. The relationship between yin and yang or between the various sets of fives could be seen as patterns in the world, whereas the Christian “systems” are more like universal narratives. Christian exegetes may find these archetypical narratives in various places, but mainstream thinkers don’t attempt to impose the Christian narrative as a framework for every single discipline. Despite having the quadriga to guide the medieval exegetes, the interpreter is still more or less free to say that anything in the Old Testament “stands” for something else, so long as it fits into the overall theme and message of Christianity. It would be extremely difficult to claim that a particular allegorical exegesis is “wrong,” because in many ways the correlative theological thinking is less regulated than the Chinese model.

Furthermore, the theological texts above are hermeneutical in nature and not ethical/political like the Chinese texts. The correspondences in the Christian and Jewish traditions are created between the “true” meanings of different texts, which perceive a text as an allegory that “maps” onto a deeper meaning. Correspondences in Chinese tongbian thought, on the other hand, present humans in a vast and patterned relationship with the rest of the world. Even though both systems allow for many types of patterns and sorts of relationships, Western theological analogies focus on textual relations, whereas the Chinese see these patterns as a natural part of the world. Thus, despite the similarities at a surface level, the modes of “analogical” reasoning display differences that are significant enough to justify their division into two distinct modes of reasoning.

Chang Jincang,

Making Changes When Constrained Ensures Continuous Development:

The Theory and Practice of Cultural History

Conclusion

Having considered the Chinese tongbian system of analogical relations and traditional Western uses of analogical reasoning, we find that both use categorically dissimilar pairings to make arguments. However, it would be misleading to say that the two forms of reasoning are similar beyond what we have already noted. On the whole, the Chinese tradition is analogical, whereas the Western system still expresses patterns of causal relations. In terms of theology, there are many instances of Western analogical reasoning. However, most attempts at analogical reasoning are generally hermeneutical and lack a single structuring framework, as is more common in Chinese texts such as the Yijing or the Lüshi Chunqiu. With the advent of the historical-critical method in the West, analogical reasoning in theology became less important, almost to the point of cultural irrelevance in modern times. While it can be tempting to equate analogical reasoning in the two traditions, for the sake of accuracy, it is important to maintain the uniqueness of both the Chinese tongbian reasoning and Western analogical argumentation.

(Travis Walker,Faculty member at the American School Foundation of Monterrey, with a Master’s degree in Chinese Thought from Beijing Normal University)