Four Pillars: Li Yi Lian Chi — The Moral Foundation of Society

四维：礼义廉耻 · 管仲提出的道德基石 · 礼义廉耻，国之四维

Introduction 引言

The statesman Guan Zhong, who served as prime minister of the state of Qi in the seventh century BCE, is associated with one of the most direct statements in early Chinese political philosophy. In the Guanzi — a text compiled by scholars of the Jixia Academy and traditionally linked to his name — he writes: a state has four pillars (wei). When all four are intact, the state is well-ordered. When one collapses, the state is unstable. When two collapse, it is in danger. When three collapse, it is overturned. When all four collapse, the state is destroyed. The four pillars are: li (propriety, ritual correctness), yi (righteousness, moral duty), lian (integrity, incorruptibility), and chi (shame, the capacity for moral self-assessment).

管仲，约公元前723年至前645年，春秋时期齐国政治家。在以其名字命名的《管子》 – 一部由战国时期稷下学派学者编撰、托名于管仲的文献中，他写道：国有四维。一维绝则倾，二维绝则危，三维绝则覆，四维绝则灭。倾可正也，危可安也，覆可起也，灭不可复错也。何谓四维？一曰礼，二曰义，三曰廉，四曰耻。

The four pillars have been cited by Chinese thinkers, rulers, and educators across more than two and a half millennia. The Song dynasty philosopher Zhu Xi, in his Jiuyou Fengshi (memorial submitted in 1189), explicitly quoted the phrase: “Li Yi Lian Chi, shi wei siwei. Siwei bu zhang, guo nai mie wang.” They appeared on the plaques of county schools and government halls during the Ming and Qing dynasties. They were incorporated into the “Old Eight Virtues” (gu ba de) that shaped moral education in late imperial China. Whether read as a political theory, an ethical framework, or a historical document, the four pillars remain a subject of ongoing philosophical inquiry.

这四维被中国思想家、统治者和教育者引用了两千五百多年。宋代理学家朱熹在《己酉拟上封事》中明确引用：”礼义廉耻，是谓四维。四维不张，国乃灭亡。”它们出现在明清时期县学、衙署的匾额上。它们被纳入塑造晚清帝国道德教育的”古八德”。无论作为政治理论、伦理框架还是历史文献来阅读，四维始终是持续哲学探讨的议题。

---

The Four Pillars Examined 四维详解

礼 Li — Propriety lǐ · ritual correctness English: Li is the most comprehensive of the four. It encompasses the forms of correct conduct in every domain of social life: the rituals of ancestor worship, the protocols of court ceremony, the proper forms of greeting and farewell, the correct behavior of children toward parents, of officials toward superiors, of hosts toward guests. Li is not etiquette in the trivial sense — it is the externalization of ethical relationships in stable, transmissible form. In a society governed by li, the ethical order is encoded in visible, repeatable practice. 中文: 礼是四维中最全面的。它涵盖社会生活每个领域正确行为的形式：祖先崇拜的礼仪，朝廷礼节的规范，问候与告别的正确形式，子女对父母、官员对上级、主人对客人的正确行为。礼不是微不足道意义上的礼貌——它是伦理关系在稳定的、可传递的形式中的外化。在有礼的社会中，伦理秩序被编码在可见的、可重复的行为实践中。

义 Yi — Righteousness yì · moral duty English: Yi is the inner disposition that makes li meaningful. One can perform the forms of propriety without righteousness — mechanically, hypocritically, without understanding or genuine commitment. Yi is what makes the performance real: the inner sense of what is morally required, the disposition to act rightly because it is right, not merely because it is expected. The Guanzi defines it as “not advancing oneself” (不自进) — refusing to seek personal gain through improper means. 中文: 义是使礼有意义的内在品格。人可以机械地、虚伪地、在不理解或不真诚承诺的情况下履行礼仪的形式。义使行为成为真实：对道德要求的内在感知，因正确而正确行事的倾向，而非仅仅因为被期望。管子将其定义为”不自进”——拒绝以不正当手段谋取私利。

廉 Lian — Integrity lián · incorruptibility English: Lian is the pillar most directly relevant to governance. The Guanzi defines it as “not concealing evil” (不蔽恶) — the refusal to cover up wrongdoing, whether one’s own or another’s. A lian official does not use their position for personal enrichment. They do not accept bribes. They do not make decisions based on personal interest. Lian is the quality that makes the exercise of public power trustworthy — the quality whose absence, in any official, makes governance corrupt regardless of the laws in place. 中文: 廉是与治理最直接相关的维。管子将其定义为”不蔽恶” – 拒绝掩盖过错，无论是自己的还是他人的。廉的官员不利用职位谋取私利，不接受贿赂，不基于个人利益做决定。廉是使公共权力的行使值得信赖的品质——任何官员缺乏这种品质，都会使治理腐败，无论法律如何完备。

耻 Chi — Shame chǐ · moral self-assessment English: Chi is the most psychological of the four, and in some readings the most fundamental. The Guanzi defines it as “not following the crooked” (不从枉) — the refusal to go along with what one knows to be wrong. It is the capacity to feel genuine shame when one has acted wrongly: not merely embarrassment at being caught, but the interior recognition that one has violated something important. Confucius said: rule by law and order by punishment, and the people will avoid wrongdoing but have no sense of shame. Rule by virtue and order by propriety, and the people will have shame and will moreover correct themselves. 中文: 耻是四维中最具心理性质的，在某些解读中也是最根本的。管子将其定义为”不从枉” – 拒绝追随自己明知错误的事物。它是做错事时感受真正羞耻的能力：不是仅仅因被抓住而尴尬，而是内心认识到自己违反了某种重要的东西。孔子说：道之以政，齐之以刑，民免而无耻；道之以德，齐之以礼，有耻且格。

Small and Large · The Hierarchy of Practice 小礼大义 · 践履的层次

The Guanzi does not treat the four pillars as abstract ideals alone. In the Quan Xiu (权修) chapter, it introduces a crucial distinction between “small” and “large” practice: “Those who govern the people must desire that the people be careful with small li, practice small yi, cultivate small lian, and regulate small chi.” The text argues that if small li is not practiced in the state, one cannot expect the people to practice great li. The same applies to yi, lian, and chi. This is not a call for mediocrity — it is a recognition that ethical norms are transmitted through concrete, everyday gestures before they can animate large-scale political conduct.

《管子》并非仅将四维视为抽象理想。在《权修》篇中，它引入了”小”与”大”践履的关键区分：”凡牧民者，欲民之谨小礼、行小义、修小廉、饰小耻。”文本认为，如果小礼不在国中践行，就不能期望百姓践行大礼。义、廉、耻亦然。这不是对平庸的呼吁——而是认识到伦理规范是通过具体的、日常的姿态传递的，然后才能激活大规模的政治行为。

“欲民之有礼，则小不可不谨也；小礼不谨于国，而求百姓之行大礼，不可得也。”

——《管子·权修》

Historical Debates · Dissenting Voices 历史论争 · 质疑之声

Not all Chinese thinkers accepted the four pillars as a coherent system. The Tang dynasty philosopher Liu Zongyuan, in his essay On the Four Dimensions (四维论), raised a sharp objection: “The Guanzi takes li, yi, lian, and chi as the four dimensions. I suspect this was not Guan Zhong’s words.” Liu argued that lian and chi are merely sub-categories of yi — “the small details of righteousness” (义之小节) — and cannot stand as independent dimensions equal to li and yi. If one conceals evil, is that not already a violation of yi? If one accepts improper gain, is that not already a failure of yi? Liu’s critique reminds us that the four pillars were not universally accepted in the Chinese tradition; they were one proposal among many, subject to the same philosophical scrutiny as any other.

并非所有中国思想家都接受四维作为一个连贯的体系。唐代哲学家柳宗元在《四维论》中提出了尖锐的反对：”管子以礼义廉耻为四维，吾疑非管子之言也。”柳宗元认为，廉与耻只是义的子类别 – “义之小节” – 不能作为与礼、义并列的独立维度。如果掩饰恶行，不已经是对义的违反吗？如果不当得利，不已经是义的失败吗？柳宗元的批判提醒我们，四维在中国传统中并非被普遍接受；它们只是众多提案之一，受到与其他任何理论相同的哲学审视。

Comparative Perspectives 比较视角

Different civilizations have proposed different frameworks for what holds a society together. Plato’s four cardinal virtues (wisdom, justice, courage, temperance), Aristotle’s account of civic friendship, Cicero’s res publica, and Mencius’s “four beginnings” (恻隐之心、羞恶之心、辞让之心、是非之心) all address the same underlying question: what makes collective life possible? What is notable about Guan Zhong’s four pillars is not that they are superior to these alternatives, but that they place a different emphasis — particularly on the role of shame as a mechanism of social self-regulation.

不同文明提出了不同的框架来回答什么维系社会。柏拉图的四主德（智慧、正义、勇敢、节制）、亚里士多德关于公民友谊的论述、西塞罗的共和国理论、以及孟子的”四端”（恻隐之心、羞恶之心、辞让之心、是非之心）都指向同一个根本问题：什么使集体生活成为可能？管仲四维的值得注意之处，不在于它们优于这些替代方案，而在于它们放置了不同的侧重点 – 特别是羞耻作为社会自我调节机制的角色。

Tradition	Framework	Key Emphasis
Guanzi (管子)	礼、义、廉、耻	Social self-regulation through ritual and shame
Plato (柏拉图)	智慧、正义、勇敢、节制	Harmony of the soul and the city
Mencius (孟子)	恻隐、羞恶、辞让、是非	Innate moral sprouts rooted in human nature
Cicero (西塞罗)	智慧、正义、勇敢、节制	Civic duty and the common good

In some modern Western psychological accounts, shame and guilt are distinguished: shame is understood as a response to the judgment of others, while guilt is a response to one’s own internal standards. The four pillars do not make this distinction. Chi is both self-directed and socially embedded — the capacity to recognize that one has fallen short of a standard that is personally held and socially shared. Whether this integration is a strength or a limitation depends on the social context; in some settings, it may create powerful communal bonds; in others, it may suppress legitimate dissent.

在一些现代西方心理学论述中，羞耻与罪疚被区分：羞耻被理解为对他人判断的反应，而罪疚是对自己内在标准的反应。四维不做这种区分。耻既是自我指向的，也是社会性嵌入的——认识到自己未能达到一个既个人持守又社会共享的标准的能力。这种整合是优势还是局限，取决于社会语境；在某些环境中，它可能创造强大的社群纽带；在另一些环境中，它可能压制合法的异议。

Beyond China · The Four Pillars in East Asia 超越中国 · 四维在东亚

The four pillars were not confined to China. In Korea, the concept was absorbed into the Hyangyak (鄕約, village codes) of the Joseon dynasty, where li, yi, lian, and chi were taught alongside the five relationships as the foundation of local governance. In Japan, the Edo-period scholar Ogyū Sorai (荻生徂徠) engaged deeply with the Guanzi, though he reinterpreted the four pillars through the lens of bunbu (文武, civil and military arts). In Vietnam, the Nguyen dynasty (1802–1945) inscribed the four pillars at the Temple of Literature (Văn Miếu) in Huế, alongside Confucian classics, as part of the civil examination curriculum. Each culture adapted the framework to its own political and social needs; none treated it as a fixed, universal formula.

四维并不局限于中国。在韩国，这一概念被纳入朝鲜王朝的《乡约》，礼义廉耻与五伦一起被教授，作为地方治理的基础。在日本，江户时代学者荻生徂徕深入研究《管子》，但他通过”文武”的视角重新诠释了四维。在越南，阮朝（1802-1945）在顺化文庙将四维与儒家经典并列铭刻，作为科举课程的一部分。每种文化都根据自身政治和社会需求调整了这一框架；没有一种文化将其视为固定的、普遍的公式。

Modern Readings · The Benedict Thesis and Its Critics 现代解读 · 本尼迪克特命题及其批判

In 1946, the American anthropologist Ruth Benedict published The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, in which she characterized Japan as a “shame culture” (as opposed to the West’s “guilt culture”). This framework, though influential, has been widely criticized for oversimplifying both Japanese and Western moral psychology. More recent scholarship suggests that shame and guilt operate in all human societies, and that the distinction is one of degree and context, not of kind. The four pillars remind us that “shame” in the Chinese tradition was never merely a social control mechanism — it was always linked to an interior moral capacity. To reduce chi to external conformity is to misread the text.

1946年，美国人类学家鲁思·本尼迪克特出版《菊与刀》，她将日本描述为”耻感文化”（相对于西方的”罪感文化”）。这一框架虽有影响力，但已被广泛批评为过度简化了日本和西方的道德心理学。更近期的学术研究表明，羞耻和罪疚在所有人类社会中都存在，其区别是程度和语境的，而非性质的。四维提醒我们，中国传统中的”耻”从来不只是社会控制机制 – 它始终与内在的道德能力相联系。将耻简化为外部顺从，是对文本的误读。

A Note for Western Readers 西方读者的注脚

One reading of Guan Zhong’s argument suggests that the most fundamental pillar of social order is not law, not ritual, not duty, but the inner capacity to recognize and feel one’s own moral failure. This is one reading among many. It is not a claim that law is unnecessary, or that ritual is dispensable, or that duty is secondary. It is simply an observation that without the internal mechanism of self-correction — what the text calls chi — the other three pillars lack a sustaining force. When abandonment is convenient, when no one is watching, when the law is silent, what prevents the collapse of li, yi, and lian? One answer, proposed in the Guanzi, is the capacity for shame.

对管仲论点的一种解读认为，社会秩序最根本的支柱不是法律，不是礼仪，不是义务，而是认识和感受自己道德失败的内在能力。这只是众多解读中的一种。它并非主张法律不必要，或礼仪可舍弃，或义务次要。它仅仅是一个观察：没有自我纠正的内在机制 – 文本称之为耻 – 其他三维就缺乏维持的力量。当放弃是方便的，当无人注视，当法律沉默，什么阻止礼、义、廉的崩溃？《管子》提出的一个答案是羞耻的能力。

This is a pre-modern answer, rooted in a specific political and social context. It is not a prescription for modern governance. But as a historical document, it raises a question that remains relevant: what holds a society together when its formal institutions are weak or absent? The Guanzi‘s answer — however partial, however debatable — is one of the earliest and most direct attempts to address this question in any tradition.

这是一个前现代的答案，植根于特定的政治和社会语境。它不是现代治理的处方。但作为历史文献，它提出了一个仍然相关的问题：当正式制度薄弱或缺失时，什么维系社会？《管子》的答案 – 无论多么片面，多么可争论 – 是任何传统中最早、最直接尝试回答这一问题的文本之一。

---

Related Reading / 相关阅读

Related Reading / 相关阅读

• 四大刺客 — The Four Great Assassins of Ancient China — /four-great-assassins-ancient-china/
• 四大侠义传统 — Four Chivalric Traditions — /four-chivalric-traditions-world/
• 四大英雄原型 — Four Hero Archetypes — /four-hero-archetypes-civilization/
• 史记 — Records of the Grand Historian — /shiji-records-grand-historian/