Asian Culture and History; Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Adoption of Neo-Confucianism in Discussing Legitimacy Dispute Puning Liu1 1 Leiden University, Netherlands Correspondent: Puning Liu, Leiden University, Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected] Received: October 26, 2017 Accepted: November 30, 2016 Online Published: December 8, 2017 doi:10.5539/ach.v10n1p43 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ach.v10n1p43 1. Introduction Lipset (1960) denotes legitimacy as “the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society.” All political powers, including Chinese dynasties in history, needed legitimacy to ensure their governance. In general, Western thinkers who discuss political legitimacy could be identified into two groups (Habermas, 1979). The “empiricists”, likes Max Weber, studies legitimacy in an empirical method, focusing on the types, constitutions, functions, and evolutions of legitimacy. The second group consists of “normativists”, such as Plato and John Rawls, who tend to base legitimacy on various normative values such as justice or democracy. Pre-modern Chinese views on political legitimacy have the similar approaches like west. The first one pays attention to different empirical factors of legitimacy. For instance, the pre-Qin philosopher Zou Yan 鄒衍 (305-240 BCE), and Western Han thinker Liu Xin 劉歆 (50 BCE-23 CE) view a dynasty’s legitimate by its adoption of rightful dynastic phase (Wang 2006). The Song Dynasty (960–1279) historian Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007-1072) argues that the just position and the unification of China make a legitimate dynasty (Rao 1996).