Yes, 余英時 (Yu Yingshi)’s statement that “無處非中” (“There is no place that is not ‘center’”) aligns intriguingly with the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale—no single point is inherently the “center.”
The Irony of “中國” (the ‘Middle Kingdom’)
• China’s historical self-conception as the “center” (中) is a classic example of a pre-modern geocentric worldview, much like how pre-Copernican astronomy placed Earth at the center of the cosmos.
• The problem is not being “中” but self-declaring to be “中”—assuming that cultural, political, and moral superiority is intrinsic rather than historically contingent.
• This is a paradox of centrism:
• If everywhere is “center” (無處非中), then the idea of a privileged “center” collapses.
• The true “middle” is a relational concept, not an absolute position.
Historical Parallel: The Ptolemaic vs. Copernican Shift
• In pre-modern China, the tianxia (天下, “All Under Heaven”) system was akin to the Ptolemaic model: a geocentric order where China saw itself as the fixed, natural center of the world, with surrounding regions as progressively “barbarian.”
• Modernity shattered this worldview much like the Copernican revolution displaced Earth from the center of the cosmos.
• Yet, the CCP today reconstructs a new “Middle Kingdom” narrative under different ideological terms:
• In traditional China, Confucian virtue defined the center.
• Under Communism, historical materialism and nationalism define the center (e.g., China as the “center” of a new world order against Western hegemony).
What Happens When “中國” Becomes Self-Aware of Its “中”?
The problem isn’t being the center, but self-perceiving as the center, leading to:
1. Cultural Imperialism: The assumption that Chinese values and governance (e.g., Confucianism in history, or today’s CCP model) are universally applicable.
2. Resistance to Pluralism: If one believes their system is inherently central, then alternative systems are seen as deviant or illegitimate.
3. The Crisis of Recognition: The modern world does not accept a singular center (whether Western or Chinese). This leads to friction when China insists on centrality but faces a world that no longer functions in a sino-centric paradigm.
The Daoist Response?
Ironically, Daoism already contained a solution to this paradox centuries ago:
• Laozi and Zhuangzi rejected absolute hierarchy—the Dao flows through all things, making every point a “center” in its own right.
• Zhuangzi’s perspectivism: From different vantage points, what appears “central” shifts—what is great to one is small to another.
• If China adopted a non-possessive “中”, it would be de-centered yet still vital—not as an empire imposing order, but as one dynamic node in a fluid world.
Final Thought: Can China Move from “自以為中” to “無處非中”？
余英時’s insight could be a corrective to both Chinese nationalism and Western universalism—acknowledging that:
• China doesn’t need to be “the center” to be significant.
• True cosmological “中” is not fixed but relational, constantly redefined by interactions.
• Ironically, accepting that “無處非中” is the real way to be “中” in a modern, multipolar world.
Perhaps the ultimate wisdom is to let go of centrality to truly embody it.
