Individualism in Early China addresses an important lacuna in the field. It argues that the long shadow cast by scholars working in a comparative mode in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly Max Weber, has resulted in a continued failure to appreciate the role of individual agency in Chinese classical texts. One element of the problem has been the tendency to define individualism so narrowly that it excludes all but a small corner of the Western tradition. Erica Brindley shows that individualism, if defined expansively, can be found in all of the seminal texts of pre-Han China. While I am convinced of the importance of Brindley's project, two aspects of her analysis are likely to invite skepticism. The first potential challenge for a reader is appreciating Brindley's use of the term “conformism” to argue for individualism. The second is that by not exploring the function of the rites and music in Xunzi, Brindley overlooks the importance of creativity. By including an analysis of the aesthetic expression of morality, her search for individualism would have been markedly improved.

On page xxx of the the introduction, Brindley explains how her book understands the type of individualism present in early China: “In other words, I refer to the individual not as an atomistic, isolated, and undifferentiated part of a whole, but as a distinct organism that must serve particular functions and fulfill a unique set of relationships in the worlds of which he or she is a part.” This relationship between the person and the community is ultimately what the book seeks to demonstrate. The problem is that this nuanced emphasis on connection at first seems contrary to the book's constant reference to conformism. Chapter 2, for example, is entitled “Centralizing Control: The Politics of Bodily Conformism.” This focus on conformism and the control of individuals dominates much of the book.

The difficulty of finding individualism in conformity becomes clearest in the case of Laozi, one of the best texts available for finding the concept of personal agency in early China. By seeing the relationship between the individual and the Dao as conformist, Brindley obviates the possibility of agency. Brindley makes the point that human beings are an integral part of a universal context, the Dao. But her discussion of the Dao as denying individual agency through a process of depersonalization (pp. 36–8) seems to portray human beings as essentially transformed into the tools of a larger scheme, the Dao, where there is no place for individuals. Such a characterization of the Dao is obviously a far cry from that of Laozi's text, which consistently champions the importance of apparently insignificant individuals, such as babies. The reader begins to perceive that this discussion of conformism might ultimately be relinked to a more coherent discussion of individualism in Laozi on page 39. Here wu-wei, which is earlier defined by Brindely as “non-purposive action,” is shown to be a person-centered practice. Because of this, the value of the individual is once again recognizable from the way it was framed in the Introduction.

Brindley repeatedly defends this surprising emphasis on conformism, as in her statement on page 128: “In contrast to our own notion of conformity, which signifies the degradation of the self, conformist behaviors in early China dignified the self by helping preserve individual responsibility. . .” I appreciate that scholars have the freedom to define terms as they see fit for a specific project, but I also cannot help but think that a less ambitious term such as “harmony” would have required much less effort to recast as a core element for this study. Moreover, the use of a concept from aesthetics could have assisted in a more complete assessment of Xunzi in chapter 4. Here we find a focus on the concept of xing (one's nature), which does serve to provide continuity from the book's earlier discussion of Mencius.

This consistency is admirable and also part of the standard treatment of these two sources, but it overlooks the embodiment and personal expression of morality in the concepts of the rites and music. Attention to this creative side could have provided significant support to Brindley's analysis of individualism. In her conclusion, Brindley states, “characteristics such as uniqueness and creativity were not a central concern for most early Chinese authors. . .” (pp. 128–29); Zhuangzi is one exception she acknowledges in the notes. A plethora of scholarship exists on the importance of creativity in early China, including that of David Hall and Roger Ames, Scott Cook, and Antonio S. Cua. Leveraging this work could have strengthened a book that makes an important contribution to the field.