We have a sanitized and debauched contemporary understanding of Daoism. What was once a socially oriented theology was recast as an individualistic, secular philosophy by missionaries and scholars. In the 1960s, ambiguous adaptations of “Daoism” became vessels for lazy progressivism and commercialized identity, especially in the rise of New Age esotericism. The Western understanding of Daoism is dishonest. It diminishes the gravity, vibrance, and utilitarianism of traditional Daoism, leading to the familiar and erroneous sentiment that Daoism is useless. Daoism is misunderstood in the West, and we need to understand it in an entirely new way to preserve the profound, practical, and consequential religion.

This is a multi-dimensional topic that requires an outline for our discussion. I will start by defining “traditional Daoism” and explaining the schism in sinology. I will trace this schism back to imperial China, describing how a fractured Daoism made its way to the West. Traveling back in time, I will contextualize the origins of Daoism so we can understand why this fractured Daoism is far more individualist than it should be. Next, I will describe how this individualist Daoism was further perverted by secularism and deceitful translations. Then, we will see how the counterculture community of the 1960s commercialized this warped Daoism. Transitioning to the present day, I will outline how Daoism readopted superstition but lost all meaning, becoming a Sinophobic, abstruse, catch-all spirituality for New Age. Finally, I will explain how Daoism is misunderstood; it is actually an essential, pragmatic, influential theology that has a place in the West.

Semantic Schisms

In Western scholarship, Daoism is classically bifurcated into "philosophical" and "religious" or "popular" categories, implying two distinct forms of Daoism: one philosophical and the other theological. However, this dichotomy is not observed in China, where Daoism is perceived as a singular and multifaceted belief system. To reconcile this East-West discrepancy, many sinologists prefer the more apt distinction of “liturgical” and “mystical” Daoism. Liturgical Daoism recognizes and defines an individual’s connection to their locality, focusing on interpersonal relationships cultivated by spiritual activities—similar to Confucian “deliberate tradition,” though admittedly less defined. Mystical Daoism, on the other hand, is focused on an individual’s spiritual and intellectual relationship with the Dao. These definitions, unlike the classical distinction, do not suggest a strict bifurcation between philosophy and ritual but acknowledge two Daoist traditions that may intersect in ideology or practice. To clarify our discussion, I will refer to the inseparable blend of mystical and liturgical Daoism as “traditional Daoism,” emphasizing that, historically, no schism existed between these two facets.

The Degenerate Religion

Despite the inherent inseparability of mysticism and liturgy in traditional Daoism, Western perceptions dismiss Daoist liturgy as a purely historical phenomenon lacking pedagogical relevance and application. Mystical Daoism is considered “true Daoism” amongst Western Daoists, scholars, and Western media. In contrast, liturgical Daoism is often seen as a “degenerate religion” abundant in dangerous superstitions and peculiar, often cult-like rituals. There is truth in this sentiment. Following the Mongol conquest of China, new socio-political challenges arose, heightening occupational and familial responsibilities. Burdened by these challenges, many Daoists adopted simplified ritualistic practices, treating Daoism as a mundane duty rather than an actively engaged spirituality. Rituals became another responsibility, distanced from mysticism, introspection, and philosophical engagement.

This era is also when the schism between mysticism and liturgy began. Thomas Hobbes famously remarked, “Leisure is the mother of philosophy,” arguing that unburdened time is a necessary condition for intellectual pursuits. Daoist literati (educated aristocrats), free of financial and social burdens, began to neglect social rituals in favor of academic and individual pursuits of the Dao. Over successive dynasties, liturgical Daoists increasingly faced perception amongst literati as perilous orthodox heretics, outcasts following meaningless superstitions. Liturgical Daoists were denigrated in China when Christian missionaries first encountered Confucian and Daoist literati in the 17th century. In the dialogues between Christian missionaries and these literati, any facet of Daoism that clashed with preexisting prejudices was omitted. Hence, the “Daoism” conveyed to the West had no consideration of liturgical tradition. Sinologist and Daoist scholar Russel Kirkland contends that in losing liturgical tradition, Daoism lost essential social considerations and influence.

Emerging parallel to Confucianism, Daoism’s goal was to foster Chinese unity without overly restrictive social protocols. Early Daoists believed that to create social harmony, a totalizing ideology— Daoist mysticism—was necessary. Mysticism would facilitate individuals to elevate their consciousness, making them more thoughtful, altruistic, and intentional in action. However, mystic ideology and self- perfection alone could not facilitate a stable society. External issues existed: the human needs for kinship bonds, collaborative spirituality, convention, physical touch, etc. Liturgical Daoism responded to these needs by defining and enhancing an individual’s connection to their locality, bringing people together through collective spiritual contemplation, public ceremony, cooperation, and association. Thus, liturgical Daoism is inherently communal. The Daoist mystic, on the other hand, is “alone with the Dao— quite divorced from the ‘external’ realities of his family and community.” Kirkland believes that the loss of an essential individual-community duality led Western Daoism astray by creating the erroneous assumption that Daoist objectives are attainable through individual pursuit alone.

Secular Imitations

Unfortunately, liturgy was not the only element of Daoism lost in its transition to the West. Kirkland argues that the individualist Daoist mysticism conveyed to the West by missionaries had too much “ecclesiastic baggage” for Westerners. Divine faith and prayer clash with other religious loyalties, which made Daoist mysticism hard to adopt. Therefore, Daoism was given a secular molding to make it more “digestible.” This digestibility is easy to understand if viewed under the classical semantic distinction: it is far easier to embrace a vaguely spiritual “philosophy” than a full-on religion. Because of this, the first translations of Daoist texts were sterilized by secular interpretations. The Dao De Ching and Chuang Tzu were interpreted largely areligious. References to divinity and prayer were diagnosed as metaphors and dishonestly delivered in benignly spiritual translations. A metaphorical interpretation of Daoism is essential, as Daoism is much more than religious dogma. However, neglecting the importance of divinity and faith in the religion is deceitful to anyone who wants a nuanced perspective and a theological understanding of Daoism.

The Daoist canon—the Daozang—is an anthology of over 1,400 texts. As of now, very few of these texts have been translated into English. On the other hand, the two most famous texts—the Dao De Ching and Chuang Tzu—have hundreds of translations. Louis Komjathy, a religion scholar at Boston University, believes that the English Daozang market has become overly saturated with these two texts, conflating these texts as entirely representative of the religion. Because of this, Daoism has been misrepresented in textbooks, translations, and adaptations ever since its Western inception. Komiathy analyzes a study of these English textbooks, finding an “unjustified emphasis” on mystical Daoism. Further, 56% of textbook citations of the Daozang come from the Dao De Ching, 25% from the Chuang Tzu, and only 18% from other (unspecified) Daozang texts. This means that Daoism, with a secular, individualistic, Western spin, has permeated education, religious studies, sinology, and almost every “authoritative” realm.

Commercialized Orientalism

The 1960s counterculture movement “discovered” and adopted secularized, individualistic English mutations of Daoism, using them to popularize, commercialize, and ritualize the ideals of modern progressivism. The movement inadvertently produced “spiritual capitalism:” the commercialization of ambiguous spirituality and hierograms that exploit the capitalistic proclivities of Westerners. Visit the religion section of your local bookstore, and you will see The Tao of Nutrition, The Tao of Dogs, The Tao of Baseball, and several other arbitrary titles alleging that some random topic is full of ancient Eastern wisdom. Alongside these is a series of “self-help” books marketed toward those struggling mentally or economically. Add in the commercialization of the Yin-Yang symbol, expressionistic garb, and “snake oil” TCM, and you get a hypocritical Western “Daoist” that is materialistic, provocative, and enticed by irreverent bait. Since the 1960s, this pseudo-Daoist bait has spread throughout the West. Currently, the word “Daoism” is associated with New Age. The stereotype of a Daoist is a gypsy-stoner-type that practices vacuous pseudoscience, isolated from civilization and political concerns (barring murky environmentalism). The word “Daoism” conjures up images of astrology, crystals, psychedelics, divination, oils, and bedraggled hippies.

In understanding the popularity and spread of this New Age “Daoism, ” we must acknowledge our Sinophobic tendencies. There has always been a Western desire to see the Ancient East through an exotic, romantic lens. It is alluring to imagine the “exotic Orient,” a place of paradoxical and bizarre ideologies, unusual clothing, and traditions that transcend the familiar bore of the West. Orientalism has contributed to the metamorphosis of Daoism by making it increasingly vague, esoteric, and distant from its foundations: It is far more captivating and exciting to imagine Daoism as an undefinable, enigmatic foreign riddle than as a familiar swath of deity-centered ceremonial rites and prayers. By manipulating a handful of amorphous ideas—Dao, zen, wu-wei, and yin-yang—Western Daoism has become a “catch- all” philosophy and spirituality that appeals, in its ambiguity, to exoticism. The teachings and ideas in traditional Daoism are undeniably more abstract and foreign than in Abrahamic religions. However, the reality is that Daoism is far more discernible than we like to believe, with explicit instruction, god- worshipping rituals, and flawed (often violent) followers. Essentially, it is far more human: rigid, problematic, and schematic. We must understand the religion in every context, admitting disappointing familiarities alongside riveting philosophical and spiritual ideas.

Combine exoticism with the modern identity crisis in the United States, and you get a contemporary New Age “Daoist.” Western Daoism is easy to embrace; it is individualist, comfortably secular, abstract, trendy, and charmingly Oriental. The ambiguity is also—like its benign spirituality— agreeable with any theology, philosophy, or lifestyle. To become a Western “Daoist,” there is no need to change any aspect of your life. Especially when combined with the expressive fad of New Age, people can comfortably solve an identity crisis, fulfilling their desires for meaning and individuality.

Seemingly, elements of liturgical Daoism have returned. New Age traditions incorporate superstitions and rituals of traditional Daoist liturgy (TCM, cosmology, chants, etc.). This can be seen as a positive backtrack into traditional, socially centered Daoism. However, there is a strong argument that these practices are Daoism in name alone. Traditional rituals used pseudoscientific ideas and superstitions to center people in the present, bringing them closer to reality and community for increased mindfulness and purpose. To use Chinese terminology, the objective of traditional Daoism is to harness ch’i (energy) so that De (power) can be channeled by a Chen-jen (ideal human); this is done individually through wu-wei (effortless action) and vicariously through liturgy. Focused solely on the final tenet, energy via liturgy, New Age Daoist habits are unrelated to these fundamental principles except in glib rhetoric. To put it curtly, a Daoist of New Age is akin to an unbaptized Baptist lighting Hanukkah candles for Christmas—an ignorant charlatan, irrelevant except in their belief in God; essentially, an estranged cousin of traditional Daoism.

A Better Perspective

Many criticize the debauched Daoism of New Age for promoting a "do-nothing" attitude and fostering insularity. I will define this advocation as that of “lazy progressivism:” a liberal attitude toward issues without any effort to make tangible change. Combined with the abstract verbiage employed in modern adaptations, you get the widespread assumption that Daoism is useless and impractical. However, I will argue that traditional Chinese Daoism is hugely consequential and promotes an active, functional, intentional attitude toward life. It is not a submission to difficulties but the overcoming of challenges through focused effort. A Daoist observing this mindset will act with pure effectiveness and limitless strength, having measurable, decisive impacts on the world around him. These impacts of Daoism have been studied quantitatively. A 2006 meta-analysis of Chinese and Western cognition patterns found a “naïve dialecticism” among Westerners confronted with Daoist concepts. Studies found that the Chinese think of things as abstract, holistic, circular, situation-centered, contextual, and dialectical. This is opposite to Westerners, who think of things as concrete, analytic, linear, person- centered, dispositional, and synthetic.

Additionally, the Chinese attributed different causes to events, interpreted physical phenomena differently, evaluated themselves differently, and judged decisions differently than Westerners. Joseph Needham, a British scientist and sinologist, famously stated that “a Chinese thought without Daoism is like a tree without roots. ” Chinese writer Lu Xun wrote, “All of Chinese roots are in Daoist tradition.” The impacts of Daoism are not just cognitive: obviously, thoughts define political, social, environmental, existential, emotional, and individual matters. Daoism has written—and will continue to write— Chinese history and culture. I will also attack the argument that Daoists are “lazy.” This is false: Daoism has defined leisure in China as focusing on active, mindful, purposeful activities rather than the “passive” leisure we see in the West. In China, leisure is focused on introspection, connection to nature, artistic endeavors, holistic healthcare, and cultural activities. These are not “lazy” practices of languor or passivity.

How should we ultimately understand Daoism? If the Western interpretation strays too far from traditional Daoism, who qualifies as a “genuine” Daoist? Can New Age and countercultural ideas coexist with Daoism? From a Daoist perspective, the Dao is pluralistic: there are many interpretations and elements in the West that can be true. Indeed, there are elements of Western Daoism that can genuinely be considered Daoist. Most traditional Daoists—the orthodox, conventional, liturgical sects—have no problem with followers of New Age or Western Daoism calling themselves “Daoists.” There is room for all in the Dao, they argue. Especially when considering the social impacts of environmentalism and counterculture, these contemporary traditions are not useless or necessarily astray from Daoist pedagogy. However, a problem arises when objectively non-Daoist practices—like exoticism, deceitful commercialization, dishonesty, and superficial liturgy—are deemed Daoist. Purporting to be “true Daoism” while neglecting traditional interpretations, cultural context, and Chinese history is inherently contrary to the pluralism of the Dao. Cultural or ideological assimilation is not necessarily immoral; I urge Daoist Westerners, especially followers of New Age, to prudently meditate on whether it is appropriate to call themselves “Daoists” or whether this could exacerbate Western desecration.

The extent to which Daoism has been disfigured should not intimidate anyone who wants to understand or adopt it. Daoism is a profound theology that can be important in the West. Its beliefs allow for a more holistic and spiritual worldview, and its concrete teachings and traditions can positively impact social cohesion and individual well-being. The foremost enemy of Daoism is social disharmony, which we are experiencing a lot of right now, especially in America. Could an informed Daoism play a role in constructing a more cooperative, harmonious, and successful West?

Bibliography

Ciaudo, Joseph. "Denigrating Taoism in the West: A typology of Late Qing Chinese scholars’ discourse in Western languages,” Ming Qing Yanjiu 27, 1 (2023): 30-53, https://doi.org/10.1163/24684791- 12340070.

Clarke, J. J. The Tao of the west: Western transformations of Taoist thought. London: Routledge, 2006.

Cornelia N. Moore and Lucy Lower, Translation East and West: A Cross-Cultural Approach: Selected Conference Papers (College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawaii and the East-West Center, 1992), 29-41.

Creel, H. G. “What Is Taoism?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 76, no. 3 (1956): 139. https://doi.org/10.2307/596285.

Girardot, N. J. “‘Let’s Get Physical’: The Way of Liturgical Taoism.” History of Religions 23, no. 2 (1983): 169–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062658.

Johnson, Luke. “Kierkegaard and the Significance of Individuality .” University of Georgia, 2017. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/johnson_luke_a_201705_phd.pdf.

Kirkland, Russell. “Person and Culture in the Taoist Tradition.” Department of Religion - UGA, 1992. https://religion.uga.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/PERSON.pdf.

Kirkland, Russell. “The Taoism of the Western Imagination and the Taoism of China: De-Colonializing the Exotic Teachings of the East” Department of Religion - UGA, 1997. https://religion.uga.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/TENN97.pdf.

Komjathy, Louis. “Common Misconceptions Concerning Daoism.” Essay. In The Daoist Tradition: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Komjathy, Louis. “Taoist Texts in Translation.” Academia.edu, June 4, 2014. https://www.academia.edu/5439996/TAOIST_TEXTS_IN_TRANSLATION.

Miller, James, and Elijah Siegler. “Of Alchemy and Authenticity: Teaching about Daoism Today.” Teaching Theology & Religion 10, no. 2 (2007): 101–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9647.2007.00323.x.

Moore, Cornelia N., and Lucy Lower. Translation east and west: A cross-cultural approach: Selected conference papers. College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawaii and the East-West Center, 1992.

“The New Age Movement.” Department of Computer Science at Cornell. Accessed December 24, 2023. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/info/people/kreitz/Christian/Cults/9.newage.pdf.

Peng, Kaiping, Julie Spencer-Rodgers, and Zhong Nian. “Naïve Dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese Thought.” Indigenous and Cultural Psychology, n.d., 247–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387- 28662-4_11.

Stokes, Bruce. “America’s Identity Crisis.” GMFUS, December 17, 2021. https://www.gmfus.org/news/americas-identity-crisis.

Wang, Jianyu, and L. Allison Stringer. “The Impact of Taoism on Chinese Leisure.” World Leisure Journal 42, no. 3 (2000): 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2000.9674194.

Copyright © 2024 Leland Stayton. All rights reserved.