Jason Li: Self-sacrifice in 義 (yi)

義 is the sixth most frequently used philosophical term in the Analects, and like its sibling terms, has no clear English translation. This paper suggests that although Ames and Rosemont’s translation of 義 as “appropriate” is the best translation for the term as used in the Analects, it lacks any mention of self-sacrifice, which, seen with an English-speaking and Western bias, is necessary to explain the term. A self-sacrificial element is present in both modern derivatives of 義 as well as in passages in the Analects. Because Ames and Rosemont come closest to the term, when not specified otherwise, their translations of passages in the Analects have been used.

There are four criteria that surround 義’s definition:
1. 義 can be seen, but also be acted upon. “Failing to act on what is seen as appropriate (義 yi) is a want of courage” (2.24).
2. 義 is a relationship between two people. “…how could one think of abandoning what is appropriate between ruler and subject?” (18.7)
3. 義 must be pursued, and pursued amidst people. “…‘I dwell in seclusion to pursue my ends, and act on my sense of what is appropriate (義 yi) to extend my way (dao道).’ … I have yet to see such persons” (16.11).
4. 義 is a means of acting. “…wealth and position gained through inappropriate (buyi 不義) means…” (7.16).

So in sum: 義 can be seen, acted upon, be a means of acting, represents a relationship between multiple parties and must be pursued amidst people. Such a wide range of use indicates why translations of 義 often use multiple English equivalents and are ambiguous outside of the context of a sentence.

Even when multiple English words are used, translations of 義 are limited at best. The MDBG dictionary * translates it as “meaning/significance.” This works in (1.13): “That making good on one’s word (信 xin) gets one close to being [meaningful] (義 yi)...” Yet the translation into “meaning/significance” does not emphasize the moral implications of the word, and meaning/significance is usually translated into Chinese as 意義, where the extra 意 is used to emphasize its application as a (meaningful) thought/idea. Charles Muller translates 義 as “right” and “justice.” This works in 17.23, “An exemplary person who is bold yet is lacking a sense of [right / justice] (義 yi) will be unruly…” However, right/justice is usually translated into Chinese as 正義, where 正 has been used to emphasize an aspect of uprightness, fairness or balance otherwise absent from 義. Additionally, as stated in the four criteria earlier, 義 is a relationship between two parties and must be pursued amidst people, while right/justice is an abstract concept mostly associated with an individual. D.C. Lau’s translation of 義, “duty, moral or morality,” allows for the social aspect and is a more precise translation then Ames and Rosemont’s “appropriate.” However, the words duty and morality are plagued with Western bias: duty implies a forced obligation* and morality implies abstract and objective principles devoid of social context.

Thus, Ames and Rosemont’s relatively ambiguous translation of 義 as “appropriate” is the only one that encompasses both the right/just/moral aspect as well as the consideration of others without any inherent Western biases. Additionally, “appropriate” suggests a state of becoming, a prevalent theme in the Analects, while “duty/morality” suggests a state of attainment, which even Confucius admits he has not reached.

Ames and Rosemont clarify their use of “appropriate” for 義 by linking to its aesthetic, moral, social and religious usages and placing it in the context of “仁(authoritative conduct),” “禮(observing ritual propriety)” and “信(making good on one’s word).” These details allow “appropriate” to take on a more nuanced definition depending on the context. Unfortunately, even though Ames and Rosemont address Western biases in translating 義 in their introduction, they do not discuss 義’s association with self-sacrifice.

Situations involving 義 in the Analects often hint at acts of self-sacrifice. (2.24), “Failing to act on what is seen as appropriate (yi 義) is a want of courage,” suggests that one must be brave, for others, in order to endure or overcome a fear. (14.12) describes consummate persons (chengren 成人) who “on seeing a chance to profit they think of appropriate conduct (yi 義), on seeing danger they are ready to give their lives…” Here, 義 is grouped together with an example of self-sacrifice, suggesting an element of restraint for the benefit of others. The theme of restraint is also present in (12.20), where a person seeking 義 “are thoughtful in deferring to others.” 18.7 moves beyond restraint and towards self-sacrifice. The passage describes a recluse who Confucius believes has the capability to serve in office, and by refusing to, “fail[s] to do what is important and appropriate (yi 義).” By caving to his own desires and refusing to serve others, the recluse lacks 義. Notice that the optimal solution presented is a self-sacrificial one: the recluse serves in office despite not wishing to do so.

The self-sacrificial usage of 義(yi) persists in modern Chinese, in 義氣 / 义气. 義氣, translated literally is an “air of yi,” is used to describe a quality certain people possess,* sometimes translated as “personal loyalty.”* A cursory Internet search reveals that a definition of 義氣 (air of yi) that refers to elements of appropriateness, the social and self-sacrifice:
“什么是义气？在我无可奈何下开口求救时一口答允，并且谓老朋友了，说什么酬劳？” [What* is 義氣(an air of yi)? It’s instantly agreeing to help when I’m at a dead end, in addition to doing it for an old friend and not for any reward.]

The translation of 義 as appropriate, in addition to Ames and Rosemont’s applications in the aesthetic, moral, social and religious realms, should be placed under a context of restraint and self-sacrifice. As Confucius says, “it is rare indeed for someone to go wrong due to personal restraint” (4.24).


* 1 MDBG Chinese-English dictionary (http://www.xuezhongwen.net), “constructed by using 2 publicly available dictionaries (Unihan & CEDICT)”
*2 I argue for a more self-sacrificial translation of 義 later, and certainly “duty” fulfils this requirement. However, “duty” implies a lack of choice or freedom, whereas 義 is used more often in the context of sacrificing for others, or for a more nuanced gain.
*3 I’m shying away from zhongwen.com’s translation, “code of honor” which is linked to concepts of personal pride and implies there is a rigid set of rules for 義.
*4 Anonymous poster on internet forum: http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/phorum/read.php?3,56171
*5 http://seokhwa.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/%E4%B9%89%E6%B0%94/