Daoist nature or Confucian nurture

In the course of human development there has been a long debate on the notion of nature versus nurture, comparing the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (‘nature’ as the pre-wiring determined by biological factors or innatism) with personal experiences and environmental influences (‘nurture’ in the sense of acquired learning after birth). The Guodian Yucong texts dated to the fourth century BCE can be read as one of the earliest responses in early China to the question of human development and social advancement. These texts have not chosen to delineate the rigid dichotomy of nature and nurture, but to acknowledge their roles, confirming the importance of both inborn human nature endowed by heaven (tian), and external social practice as well as learning efforts in human development and socio-political construction. The Yucong is a good example of the Guodian manuscripts not fitting exactly into received traditions such as the Daoist, which is emphatic on the natural way, the Way of heaven; or the Confucian, which emphasizes cultural patterning, the way of man, in moral development. Rather, these manuscripts represent a third—more moderate—picture of self-cultivation, with what I term an ‘interweaving’ of the Daoist nature and the Confucian nurture approach.