Bao Gangsheng’s Arrival: A History of Political Evolution is a work of sociology—or, more precisely, political science—about the emergence and decline of monarchy, feudalism, constitutional government, republicanism, and democracy, along with the historical, cultural, and social conditions behind them. In the introduction, Bao presents the book’s originality as an attempt to bring Darwinian evolutionary theory into social analysis, using it to explain the internal logic of political change.
After reading the whole book, I cannot say I found a genuinely new sociological insight in that claim. Put another way, I did not fully grasp where the author’s promised innovation lies.
Even so, I still think the book is worth recommending.
First, compared with works by Hobbes, Locke, Max Weber, Jared Diamond, and others, this book is more systematic. It benefits from coming later: it absorbs and reorganizes many earlier theories. Second, its way of explaining things is closer to the reading habits and intellectual background of Chinese readers, which is a real advantage of being written in one’s native language. Third, it makes use of Chinese historical materials, so the examples feel more familiar than many Western works that rely almost entirely on European and American cases.
The book runs to 752 pages, but it does not feel especially heavy. It reads smoothly. What also makes it different from many sociological works is that it does not begin with primitive communism and then march toward democracy or socialism. Instead, it builds its analysis around four major questions: the Hobbesian question, meaning why the state is necessary; the Actonian question, meaning the abuse and restraint of power; the Lockean question, meaning political liberty and limits on power; and the Tocquevillian question, meaning the problems associated with democracy.
In this framework, the evolution of political forms is abstracted into four issues: the necessity of the state, the abuse of power, the restraint of power, and the wider distribution of power. The book’s explanations unfold around these questions. The political forms discussed include primitive communism or tribal organization, monarchy, feudalism, constitutional monarchy, republicanism, and democracy.
My own understanding is that the Hobbesian and Actonian questions should apply from primitive society through the feudal period. But here one has to be careful: Chinese and European historical trajectories were not the same. China moved directly from tribal society into what is commonly called feudal society, while Europe passed through tribal society, early republican or monarchical forms, and then feudal society. Because of our education, many Chinese readers instinctively associate “feudal society” with backwardness and something negative. Yet through this book’s analysis, one can see that feudalism had a progressive side, especially in Europe. Our automatic reaction to the word is not necessarily accurate.
Ancient Athens, with its early republican system, is often treated as the model for modern republicanism and democracy, and is sometimes regarded as the most admirable political form of antiquity. Yet this political order was criticized by Plato, defeated by the more authoritarian Sparta, and eventually conquered and ruled by monarchical Macedonia. Rome began as a republic, but because of internal political crises it gradually became a more stable monarchy, and later fragmented into small feudal states. Do these facts prove that feudalism was superior to monarchy, or that monarchy was more advanced than early republicanism? Obviously, it is not that simple.
The Lockean question, in my view, belongs mainly to the transition from feudalism to republicanism. The Tocquevillian question is specifically about democracy. Tocqueville’s contribution was not that he invented democracy, but that he brought it into broader public attention and accelerated the spread of democratic ideas. Roughly two hundred years separate Locke and Tocqueville, but the historical journey from republics to democracies took far longer than that. Even today, democracy has still not become universal.
Africa offers a clear example. Before European colonization, many African societies were still organized largely along tribal lines. European colonizers brought monarchical forms with them. By the end of the Second World War, most European countries had already moved toward constitutional monarchy or democracy. So when African colonies became independent after the war, the former colonial powers often tried to transform them directly into democratic states. More than seventy years have now passed, yet democracy still has not firmly taken root in many parts of Africa. In numerous countries, military strongmen, coups, and authoritarian rule remain common.
Reading Arrival makes one thing very clear: every political form depends on a corresponding soil made up of economic conditions, technology, military organization, social structure, and culture. If the soil is wrong, even a supposedly advanced system cannot survive when imposed from above.
A brief summary of the major political forms discussed in the book may be useful.
Feudalism: The monarch grants land to vassals, and in return the vassals owe taxes and military service. But this relationship is based on a contract between relative equals. The vassal is not personally dependent on the monarch, and the monarch cannot arbitrarily inflict personal punishment on the vassal. A vassal may then grant land to his own sub-vassals under a similar contractual arrangement. The vassal of a vassal owes obligations only to his immediate lord, not directly to the higher monarch.
Absolute monarchy: The king stands above the law. The king is the law. Government follows the preferences of the ruler.
Constitutional monarchy: The king stands under the law. The monarch is constrained by a constitution, and real administrative power may lie in elected institutions such as a parliament. Over time, the monarch may become a symbol of supreme authority rather than the person who actually exercises power, as in the case of the modern British monarch.
Republicanism: Political institutions derive from elections, but not all citizens have the vote. Voting rights are held by a small group of elites, and government is likewise run by elites. For example, after the First World War, in many European countries, voters made up less than 5% of the adult citizen population. Women and men who did not pay taxes often had no right to vote.
Democracy: The greatest difference between democracy and republicanism is that under democracy, all adult citizens have the right to vote. In the author’s account, republics tend to use indirect or layered elections, while democracies more often use direct elections. The U.S. presidential election is presented as an example of this kind of direct electoral principle: voters cast ballots for presidential candidates rather than relying entirely on representatives chosen through multiple layers to vote on their behalf.
The strengths and weaknesses of any political form must be evaluated in relation to its historical conditions: the economy and tax base, the available technology, the distance and speed of information transmission, productivity, control of armed force, the quality of the population, and the degree of cultural or national unity. It is not reasonable to judge all earlier political systems by the assumptions and conditions of the present.
After the Second World War, and especially after the Cold War, democracy spread across the world like a spring wind. Today, any fashionable young person can say a few things about democracy. In such an environment, what is the point of reading sociology or political science books like Arrival? Is the goal to use them as manuals for achieving more complete democracy everywhere?
My own reaction is almost the opposite. If the necessary soil is absent, it may be better for democracy to arrive a little later. Three small examples help explain why.
A neighborhood that voted itself into disorder
In an old residential compound in a first-tier city, many residents were low-income locals. Later, because homes could be freely bought and sold, many newcomers also moved in. A few years ago, many places saw residents organizing to dismiss property management companies, and this compound followed the trend. Those who were least willing to pay property management fees were the most enthusiastic. They demanded the creation of a self-governing committee and pushed to remove the property company.
In the end, the property company was successfully driven out, because by that point almost nobody was paying the fees. During the first year of self-management, things were still tolerable. But in the second year, the committee also failed to collect fees, internal conflicts began, and the committee existed only in name. Cleaning stopped. Eventually, even garbage collection stopped.
There was another reason garbage collection became impossible: the garbage trucks could no longer get in or operate inside the compound. It was an old neighborhood, but cars were parked in two rows along both sides of the road. A small car could barely pass through the middle; a larger truck could not. When the property company was still there, it had offered residents a choice: bring in a parking management company, renovate the parking spaces, and charge fees to repay the renovation cost. Older residents resisted. Why should parking that had always been free suddenly require payment?
Once garbage could not be collected, residents had to carry their trash outside the compound to throw it away. But there were always people who casually dumped it at the original collection points. The garbage piled up. Some residents who could no longer bear it wanted to sell their homes and leave, but by then the apartments had become very difficult to sell.
The compound had formed a self-governing committee and elected its members through equal voting. In form, this was democracy. But the result was not ideal; it produced the opposite effect. The reason is simple: if a group of people refuse to pay property fees even under a compulsory arrangement, will they voluntarily pay under self-governance? I do not believe so. As long as a small number of people refuse to pay, and there is no necessary coercive mechanism, soon nobody will pay.
Street stalls, equal rights, and the abuse of tolerance
On one street, small vendors had long occupied the road. Urban management officers practiced “civilized enforcement”: persuasion only, no compulsion. The vendors ignored them. Once stalls occupy the road, each vendor wants to push a little farther toward the middle, because standing half a step ahead means potential customers will see him first. The road becomes narrower and narrower, until even two cars passing each other becomes difficult.
The vendors do not merely occupy the road. They casually throw away trash after closing their stalls, quarrels are common, and safety problems such as improper use of gas cylinders cannot be ignored. Hygiene problems are even more obvious.
These small stalls cannot really speak of “service,” yet they still have customers. The reason can only be low prices. Both sellers and buyers are pursuing the lowest possible cost. In doing so, they define themselves as the lower strata of society. The reason they dare confront regulators is that they see themselves as defending the survival rights of ordinary people at the bottom.
Equal rights are a product of democracy. Before democratic society, equality of rights was not a central principle. In real society today, the government has made efforts toward equality. It has restrained its own power and made law enforcement more civilized. But those being protected—the people least able to obtain equal rights in a free society—may also abuse those rights. Equality then becomes something distorted and misused. If a public health incident occurs, or if a gas cylinder explodes, this same group will likely be the first to blame the authorities for failing to fulfill their duty to manage.
In such situations, I often wonder whether a somewhat forceful style of management—such as older forms of urban enforcement—might actually be more efficient, more reasonable, and ultimately more beneficial to the interests of lower-income people.
The hometown one cannot return to
Many people speak of a hometown they can no longer return to. The place is still the same place, but after going back, they discover that the people are no longer the people they like. To put it plainly, many people back home like to act as if they have the right to manage everyone else’s life. Older villagers do this. Elder relatives do this. One’s own parents do this. The key problem is that they want to manage things, but they never manage the right things.
Why does this happen? I suspect it may really be a remnant of feudal thinking. In feudal society, the overwhelming majority of people lived at the bottom and received little or no education. Their ability to manage their own affairs was weak, so they needed the oldest and most experienced people to guide the group. If one person managed everyone, that resembled a monarchical model. If the elder had a group of brothers or other men who discussed matters with him, that resembled a republican model.
But now young people are well educated. They have absorbed democratic ideas and learned many forms of knowledge. When elders in the hometown still rely on old feudal assumptions and their own life experience to guide the diverse lives of young people, it is only natural that they become annoying.
Political science and sociology may sound distant from everyday life, but they are closely connected to it. That is why I think everyone should read at least some sociology or political science, and Bao Gangsheng’s Arrival is a suitable entry point. Its strengths are clear: it is systematic, readable, and detailed in its explanations.
Of course, I do not agree with everything in the book. For example, I find the introduction of evolutionary theory and the economic assumption of the rational actor into the analysis of political development somewhat forced. I also disagree with parts of the final section’s outlook on the future. But disagreement is not the same as opposition. It is more like one person preferring apples and another preferring pears; there is no necessary question of right or wrong. Political science and sociology are disciplines where different views are allowed, and debate is not an exception but the normal state of things.