What We Learn from Exploring Li Zhi's Method of Inquiry?

In the pursuit of comprehending cross-cultural engagement, the persistence of Eurocentrism in political theory restricts the understanding and inclusion of non-Western perspectives. Therefore, a methodological shift to embrace non-Western intellectual traditions becomes necessary. The current debate, as contextualized by political theorist Leigh Jenco and her interlocutors, revolves around the intricate relationship between European-derived ideas and non-Western ways of life. From Jenco's view, a shift towards recognizing the role of local knowledge, not only in its substantive claims but also in its methods of inquiry, essentially embraces the rich traditions of non-Western scholarship and values diverse perspectives. Focusing on Wang Yangming's remarkable approach to cultivating substantive knowledge, Jenco's discussion on the contextualized method offers significant insights into the methodological realm, warranting further attention. However, while Jenco successfully captures and highlights Wang's innovative perspective, Wang's emphasis on internalizing wisdom from reading and practicing still overlooks other textual realms apart from the classics. Wang's method fails to break the bondage between mimicking the sages and capturing the essence of the past. Fundamentally, both reading Chinese classics and embodying moral truth through practicing the unity of knowledge and action denote learning from classical texts. Nonetheless, the limited focus on studying the classics may exclude multifaceted human experiences and socio-political contexts that defy easy categorization. While Confucian classics, such as The Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋and The Four Books and Five Classics 四书五经, are an indispensable part of Chinese thought and the fabric of Chinese culture 文, their defects in depicting the ideological picture, as well as the lived political life picture, cannot be overlooked. Surviving records of classicism, being primarily authored or controlled by the educated elite, only capture a segment and foremost the institutionalized sides of political life. In this context, my intervention in the methodological debate aims to provide a sympathetic critique of Jenco's focus on Wang's method and to broaden her approach by exploring another pivotal Ming philosopher, Li Zhi 李贽 (1527–1602), also widely known as one of the foremost iconoclastic thinkers in Chinese history. Li Zhi's philosophy introduces another aspect of learning and underscores an important methodological debate within the Neo-Confucian tradition itself. This inner methodological debate between Wang and Li highlights the variety of methods even within one tradition. More crucially, Li's emphasis on subjectivity and expanding the literary canon suggests extending a wider scope of methods for further investigation. Li points to, comments on, and values varied genres as meaningful sources of learning, and in this way his method opens up the letter, commentary, fiction, and significant to my argument, the literature realm, countering the authoritative approach to knowledge and notes the significance of the literary aspect of not only cross-cultural research but perhaps also political theory in general.