of which Confucius and his follower Mencius (ca. 371–ca.
289 b.c.e.) were themselves prime examples. While still ad-
hering to a hierarchical aristocratic worldview, the shi of-
ten remonstrated with rulers whose misguided policies and
moral behavior put them in danger of losing the mandate of
Heaven. When remonstration failed, they would sometimes
leave their home states in search of a more virtuous ruler
elsewhere. In a sense, by thus “hiding” from a ruler through
self-imposed exile to avoid moral pollution through forced
collaboration, such traveling shi can be classifi ed as moral-
political recluses, demonstrating their dissent by resigning
from offi ce.
A more desperate form of protest is exemplifi ed in the
person and legend of Qu Yuan (ca. 340–278 b.c.e.), a gov-
ernment offi cial of noble birth who committed suicide to
make a political statement and to vent his frustration over
the destruction of his home state of Chu through the slan-
der and pernicious infl uence of sycophants. Before drowning
himself in the Mi Luo River, Qu Yuan wrote the Li Sao (On
Encountering Trouble), a long, allegorical poem in which he
casts himself as a beautiful concubine neglected by the king.
Ever since, Chinese statesmen have oft en used similar meta-
phorical poetry—involving frustrated women, symbolically
referring to the ignored voices of wise ministers—as veiled
political statements of dissent.
While diff erent in other respects, the Warring States
philosophies of Laozi and Zhuangzi (fourth century b.c.e.)
agreed that their age was so chaotic that whole-scale rejec-
tion of contemporary forms of government and social values
through reclusive withdrawal was the only meaningful course
of action. In contrast, being fi rmly rooted in social philoso-
phy, Confucius and his followers were unable to accept these
radical forms of political protest, which to them amounted to
“living with the birds and beasts.”
In legalism, a Machiavellian^ political philosophy asso-
ciated with the late Warring States thinker Han Fei (d. 233
b.c.e.), dissent was no longer an option, and anyone showing
resistance to the government would be ruthlessly suppressed.
Th e Han feizi, a philosophical work attributed to Han Fei,
mentions a case of two sagelike retired recluses who were exe-
cuted simply for wanting to live independently of the state. By
placing themselves outside the jurisdiction of the government
and by being immune to the lure of monetary compensation
and the fear of punishment, they were seen as subverting the
authority of the ruler and thereby endangering the founda-
tion of state control. Legalist-inspired policies were adopted
by the ruthless Qin Dynasty (221–207 b.c.e.), which conse-
quently strove to discourage all forms of resistance, as exem-
plifi ed in the infamous incidents of the burning of books and
the killing of scholars to preempt dissension.
Th ese examples of resistance illustrate how politically en-
gaged individuals expressed dissent in isolation, through re-
monstration, reclusion, suicide, or allegorical poetry. In other
cases individuals grouped together to voice political disagree-
ment. Two such cases from the late Han Dynasty (202 b.c.e.–
220 c.e.) have oft en been linked to the fall of the empire: the
party proscription and the Yellow Turban Rebellion.
Th e party proscriptions arose in the bitter feuds between
the palace and the reformist offi cials of the imperial adminis-
tration. In his successful coup d’état in 159 c.e., the emperor
Huan relied on eunuch (castrated) offi cials, whom he subse-
quently awarded with noble titles and political infl uence. As
the wealth and political clout of the eunuchs grew, the local
elites and powerful offi cials came to view them as ineffi cient
parasites sucking the lifeblood out of the empire through lav-
ish spending. University students joined the reformists in
turning public opinion against the eunuchs through the use
(one of t he fi rst in historical records) of critical essays, pam-
phlets, rhymed political slogans, and student demonstrations.
In 167 c.e., when the eunuchs responded by accusing
the reformist movement of forming a faction and conspiring
against the emperor, the reformist leaders were imprisoned
and barred from offi ce. However, the death of the emperor
Huan dealt a heavy blow to the eunuchs, and by 168 c.e.
some of the formerly imprisoned reformists were again oc-
cupying important government offi ces. In 168 c.e. the tide
turned in favor of the eunuch who in 169 c.e. launched the
second great proscription, which lasted until the Yellow Tur-
ban Rebellion in 184 c.e. and during which the accusation
of factionalism was repeatedly used to discredit, imprison,
proscribe, and even execute the enemies of the eunuchs.
Since in the Han Dynasty the classics were part of the rep-
ertoire of the educated, political elite, the discussion of fac-
tions in the Analects of Confucius greatly infl uenced Han
conceptions of dissent: “Th e gentleman... is sociable, but
does not form factions.” Th e eunuch thus could shrewdly
exploit the terminology of Confucius, one of the cultural
heroes of the reformist tradition, against the reformist of-
fi cials themselves.
Th e reformist movement used the pen to express opposi-
tion to the Han government, and the Daoist-inspired Yellow
Turban peasant uprising resorted to armed revolt. Together
they contributed to the destabilization of the Han Dynasty,
eventually leading to the disintegration of the empire under
various warlords and many short-lived simultaneous courts
during the Six Dynasties Period (220–589 c.e.).
While the historical record for ancient China is relatively
complete, the corresponding record for most of the rest of Asia
is not. Much of this history is shrouded in myth, legend, and
confl icting accounts, usually by Chinese writers, including
both contemporaries and those who wrote in later centuries.
A good example is provided by Japan. Th e history of an-
cient Japan is conventionally divided into three major peri-
ods. Th e earliest was the Jōmon Period, which extended from
about 13,000 b.c.e. to about 300 b.c.e. During this period Ja-
pan was not a unifi ed nation but a tribal society. Following
the Jōmon Period was the Yayoi Period, which extended from
300 b.c.e. to about 300 c.e., though some historians believe
that the Yayoi culture may have begun as early as 900 or 800
b.c.e. A main distinction between the two cultures is that the874 resistance and dissent: Asia and the Pacific