Ecophobia, "Hollow Ecology," and the Chinese Concept of "Tianren Heyi" (天人合一)

S C H O L A R LY A R T I C L E
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isle/article-abstract/26/2/430/5509492 by Sichuan University user on 29 July 2019

WEI GUO AND PEINA ZHUANG
Ecophobia, “Hollow Ecology,” and

the Chinese Concept of “Tianren
Heyi” (天人合一)1
It has been a decade since Simon C. Estok first theorized ecophobia

in this journal, and ecocritics have by now recognized the relevance of
ecophobia to almost every aspect of our environmental crises. Estok
developed his theory in response to E. O. Wilson’s biophilia hypothe-
sis. Though both Estok and Wilson emerged from a North American
academic culture, ecophobia and biophilia are prominent in non-
Western civilizations. By opposing ecophobia to biophilia, Estok helps
us to understand the Chinese concept of “天人合一” (“Tianren Heyi,”
“the integration of humanity and nature”), a concept that has become
dominant throughout much of modern East Asia. The direct transla-
tion of “天人合一,” as we will show, implies a harmonious relationship
between humanity and nature. It is important, however, to understand
that fear and subsequent hatred of nature compelled the ancient
Chinese to adopt a kind of cease-fire position, a stance of harmonious
coexistence with nonhumans. “天人合一” was a cultural reaction to
ecophobia and was not a spontaneous expression of innate Chinese
biophilia. This article will trace the evolution of the concept, explaining
how it participates in both biophilia and ecophobia. The history of this
concept also demonstrates that the harmonious integration of human-
ity and nature advocated by the Chinese is not a mutually beneficial co-
operation, but actually involves the projection of humanity upon
nature and the effacement of nonhuman agency. Although “Tianren
Heyi” was at first an enlightened intellectual discovery, it has lost
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 26.2 (Spring 2019), pp. 430–441
Advance Access publication May 31, 2019 doi:10.1093/isle/isz035
V
C The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association for the
Study of Literature and Environment. All rights reserved.

For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Ecophobia and Chinese Concept of “Tianren Heyi” 431
much of its ethical force. Early Daoists such as Zhuangzi used the con-
cept to counteract the ecophobic tendencies of ancient Chinese culture,
but since the Han Dynasty, Confucians have both popularized the con-
cept and diluted it to the point that rather than encouraging biophilia,
“Tianren Heyi” now more often fosters the “indifference” toward non-

human suffering that Estok locates on the ecophobic spectrum (1).
Though the Confucian positing of a benevolent relationship between
humans and nature sounds biophilic, it has actually blinded Chinese
and other East Asian people to their own ecologically destructive be-
havior. This essay offers a cautionary tale for ecocritics who identify
our environmental crisis with Western thought and who seek in Asian
cultures antidotes to a Western malaise. Estok notes that “Desperate
for hope,” intelligent thinkers have cultivated “gardens of great fool-
ishness, one of which is the notion that biophilia alone adequately
describes our relationship with nature” (58). “Tianren Heyi” is a simi-
lar garden.
Estok defines “ecophobia” as “a uniquely human psychological
condition that prompts antipathy toward nature” (1). Fear of and an-
tipathy toward nature have a long history in China. The concept of
“Tianren Heyi,” which has shaped the cultures of East Asia, “generally
refers to the harmonious relationship between humanity and nature”
(Fang 209; our trans.). The Chinese now widely accept this harmony.
But originally the Chinese were as openly ecophobic as many other an-
cient cultures; early Chinese mythology and art express an antagonistic
and fearful relationship between humans and nonhumans. Early
Daoists tried to combat the irrationality of ancient Chinese ecophobia,
but later Confucians like Mencius and Dong Zhongshu emphasized a
benevolent relationship between humans and nature, a benevolence
that has become, I will argue, paradoxically malevolent. If we want to
tap the real ecological value of the concept of “天人合一,” then we
must trace how it originated from fear and antagonism toward
nature and how it responded to an ecophobic condition. Historicizing
“天人合一” could help us to “‘unmoor’ our self-deceptions and critical
ambivalence about our relationship with nonhuman nature” (Alaimo
407). At the very least, such historicizing will put us on guard against
one Asian mode of what Estok terms “hollow ecology” (22).
Ancient China was not free from an irrational aversion to an unpre-
dictable and uncontrollable nature. Chinese myths and legends testify
to an ecophobic imagination. Estok notes that ecophobic “antagonism,
in which humans sometimes view nature as an opponent, can be
expressed toward natural physical geographies, animals, extreme me-
teorological events, bodily processes and products, and biotic land-,
air-, and seascapes” (1). Ancient Chinese culture abounds in examples.
432 I S L E
The Book of Mountains and Seas, written in the Warring States Period
(475–221 BCE), presents the ancient Chinese world picture. Apart from
the small and sparsely distributed human settlements, “the world was
a swamp and deadly quiet wilderness, and it was very dreadful even

in the daytime. . . . In this strange, horrible and barren world, wild ani-
mals and birds of prey ran rampant” (Seiji 1). Ancient Chinese people
lived in extreme fear of nonhuman nature. One modern commentator
on the Book of Mountains and Seas observes that “fear will destroy all cu-
riosity and the exploratory desires that can grow only when the mood
is peaceful and balanced”; even worse, such fear “makes logical rea-
soning impossible. Moreover, when fear becomes a habit, people lose
awareness of their fear, which continues to exert an unconscious influ-
ence over them” (Yuan, Notes 18; our trans.). This ecophobic worldview
constituted the pre-history of “Tianren Heyi.”
One manifestation of ancient Chinese ecophobia was totem wor-
ship. W. H. R. Rivers defines the totem system as a combination of
three factors:
(1) social factors. The association between an animal or
plant species or an inanimate (or a class of inanimate)
and a socially defined group (especially an exogenous
group or clan). (2) Psychological factors. Group mem-
bers believe that they have a kinship with animals,
plants or objects, which can usually be expressed as the
idea that human groups are their descendants. (3) Ritual
factors. Compliance with animals, plants or articles is
mainly reflected in the prohibition of eating certain
kinds of animals or plants and the use of certain articles
except under special circumstances. (75)
Because it posits a “kinship” between humans and nonhumans, totem-
ism has biophilic potential. But in the specific context of ancient
Chinese culture, ecophobia stifled such potential. The totemic unity be-
tween humans and nonhumans did not express affection: it was,
rather, a compromise that ancient Chinese people sought with a nature
they imagined they could not otherwise influence. Chinese totems em-
ploy fearful images of nonhumans in order to protect humans from an
antagonistic nature—in order, that is, to appropriate some of nature’s
aggression to ward away such aggression. Chinese totems are apotro-
paic, not biophilic attempts to confederate with nonhumans or recog-
nize kinship between species.
The Book of Mountains and Seas provides examples of such totemic
images. In “the first volume of this book,” we encounter a list of
“mountains headed by Mount Queshan. In addition to listing the
rivers, minerals, monsters and so on, the book also introduces the
mountain gods with bird bodies and dragon heads and describes their
sacrificial methods” (Yuan, Notes 1–8; our trans.). Throughout the rest
of the book, similar descriptions of mountains appear. Nonhumans

such as animals, plants, and minerals occupy the mountains, while hu-
man beings are absent. Such dehumanized landscapes are the objects
of fear, not love or even respect.
Ecophobic narratives are ubiquitous in Chinese mythology; one fa-
mous example is the tale of the bird “Jingwei filling the sea with
stones.” Long ago, Emperor Yan lived in southern China. He had a
daughter named Nuwa, who drowned in the East China Sea. Nuwa
took revenge by turning her soul into a bird called “Jingwei,” who car-
ried stones and branches from the mountains every day to fill the sea.
Although this legend has been interpreted in various ways, its ecopho-
bic implications are clear. The legend shows that “humanity and nature
are in a state of hostile conflict. The sea, representative of nature, stands
opposed to humanity. At that time, humans were far from being able to
compete with nature, which appeared as an alien and dreadful force.
What people saw in nature was not the hope for life, but the destruc-
tion of life” (Wen 205–06; our trans.). Rather than blaming herself for
her foolhardy swimming, Nuwa takes revenge on the sea. The prepos-
terousness of her effort to fill up the sea testifies to a perverse human
desire to antagonize nature.
Chinese legends also express ecophobia in their accounts of floods
that submerged almost all of the land and coincided with the prolifera-
tion of aggressive wild animals. The legendary hero Gun took on the
task of harnessing the floods. He attempted to stop them with dikes
made out of soil, but after nine years he could not succeed. Emperor
Yao, seeing that the people were still living in torment, became angry,
killed Gun, and ordered Gun’s son Yu to carry on his father’s difficult
task. Yu dug canals to channel the floods into the sea, and he also ex-
pelled the monstrous beasts, thus succeeding where his father failed.
Historians note that “many ancient peoples developed flood myths,
and floods were an especially frightening natural disaster in prehis-
toric times”; “myths of flood control” express humanity’s wish to con-
quer nature (Fan 22; our trans.). The Biblical account of the Flood is less
ecophobic than the Chinese version. In the Bible, the seas are not intrin-
sically evil. God uses the Flood to punish humans for their sins:
humans are to blame for the Flood, not the seas. In Chinese myth, by
contrast, the floods are an extreme manifestation of nature’s innate ag-
gressiveness. In the Bible, the Flood victimizes both humans and non-
humans, and the Flood only subsides because God makes it subside,
not because humans conquered it. In the Chinese myth, dangerous
434 I S L E
nonhuman animals thrive in the floods; waters and wild beasts join
forces in a malevolent “conspiracy against the human race,” to use
Thomas Ligotti’s phrase. According to the Chinese myth, only an ardu-
ous, multigenerational exercise of human technological ingenuity and

violence can overcome this conspiracy.
The ancient ecophobic disposition did not recede but continued
even after the Chinese entered the era of writing. One symptom of this
ecophobia was the Chinese conception of the emperor (帝, “Di”) as a
human god with extensive power over natural phenomena: “In the
Shang Dynasty (about 1600–1046 BCE), the Di had supposedly great
power and authority; he could control the weather, determine the suc-
cess of harvests, and decide the outcome of wars” (Y. Wang 404; our
trans.). The mythological power accorded to the emperor plays a role
in “Zhanbu,” the practice of divination. Chinese people carefully in-
quired about the “Di” in order to follow the will of heaven. The tech-
nique of “Zhanbu” described in The Book of Changes, a major text of the
Zhou Dynasty (about 1046–256 BCE), continued the divination practi-
ces of the Shang. Although the myth of the emperor’s power is less ex-
plicitly ecophobic than, say, the Chinese myth of the flood, it is still
anthropocentric, and it represents natural phenomena as intrinsically
threatening entities that only an anthropomorphic deity can resist. The
belief of ancient Chinese people that the “Di” could mediate between
humans and a hostile nature reveals the persistence of Chinese
ecophobia.
Evidence of Chinese ecophobia also appears in the visual arts. A
bronze container (Figure 1) represents a squatting tiger with a fright-
ened humanoid creature in its mouth. This image has generated much
discussion among Chinese scholars, who “differ greatly over the mean-
ing conveyed by the artifact, putting forward more than ten hypothe-
ses” (Ye 551–52; our trans.). But clearly the tiger represents a cruel and
powerful animal that devours a humanoid being. The stylized tiger
with a tiny quadruped on its back is a synecdoche for the violence of
nonhuman nature. The humanoid victim’s sad but calm face expresses
the best response that humans can muster: a melancholy acquiescence
in nature’s rapacity. Confucius (551–479 BCE) evinced a similar atti-
tude: he argued that one should endure nature’s hostility “calmly
rather than fighting against irreversible fate” (Qu 60; our trans.).
Having surveyed the ecophobic products of ancient Chinese cul-
ture, we might construe the Han Dynasty’s concept of “Tianren Heyi”
as a biophilic development. Daoists such as Laozi and Zhuangzi dis-
cussed “Tianren Heyi.” Zhuangzi (about 369–286 BCE) uses “Tianren
Heyi” to theorize the origins and ends of humanity: “human beings are
made from the air of heaven and earth, so the harmonious state that

Figure 1. A photograph of a bronze container from Li and Ai (40).
integrates with and finally vanishes into nature is the best state of life”
(Yuan, Ancient 15; our trans.). Zhuangzi does not regard heaven and
earth as essentially good, but he insists that humans are part of nature,
and his harmonious ideal is refreshingly non-anthropocentric. From
Zhuangzi’s perspective, humans are just one particular and transient
combination of heaven and earth; humans do not occupy a privileged
place in the world, and humans cannot transcend the world. It was the
Confucian thinker Mencius who attached the notion of “natural good-
ness” onto “Tianren Heyi.” It might seem that Mencius’s emphasis on
benevolence takes Zhuangzi’s insight in a more biophilic direction. As
we will see, however, the legacy of such benevolence has become in-
creasingly ecophobic.
Mencius believes that humans and nature are essentially good. His
concept of benevolence includes love of one’s family, love of humanity
in general, and “love for things” (Mencius 322)—that is, a state of uni-
versal love for nature, similar to “the innate tendency to focus on life
and lifelike processes” that Wilson ascribes to humans, who suppos-
edly have a natural “urge to affiliate with other forms of life” (1, 85).
Thus, Mencius does not believe that fear and confrontation
436 I S L E
characterize the fundamental relationship between humanity and na-

ture; rather, Mencius believes that human nature and morality derive
from and are inherent in nature, so the morality of the natural world is
contained in humanity. But by repackaging “Tianren Heyi” as benevo-

lence, Mencius did not eliminate Chinese ecophobia. Instead, he cam-
ouflaged it by imagining a benevolence that is as mythological as the
tales of Gun and Nuwa.
More than a century after Mencius, Dong Zhongshu, a Confucian
scholar in the Han Dynasty, further revised “Tianren Heyi.” Dong, like
Mencius, also advocated benevolence. Nevertheless, he was not satis-
fied with merely demonstrating benevolence as part of human nature:
he argued that nonhuman nature is the model for human virtue: “na-
ture is the paragon of benevolence that nourishes everything infinitely
and unceasingly” (235; our trans.). Dong’s vision of mutually benevo-
lent human and nonhuman natures apparently leaves no room for eco-
phobic conflict. Dong’s assertion of the “similarity between humanity
and nature” and their shared benevolence resembles Wilson’s faith in
the innate biophilia that prompts “the connections that human beings
subconsciously seek with the rest of life” (350). Dong’s belief that
humans and nonhumans share the same spirit informs his understand-
ing of biology and psychology: “The number of days in a year con-
struct humanity’s body. Humanity’s blood turns into benevolence by
the will of nature… And humanity’s joy, anger, grief and happiness
correspond to nature’s spring, autumn, winter, and summer” (223).
Since humanity and nature are analogous, they are mutually attracted
and connected; for Dong, “the similarity draws nature and humanity
together for integration” (249). This development of “Tianren Heyi”
emphasizes the essential goodness of nature and humanity, and estab-
lishes a reciprocal relationship that differs greatly from the polarized
antagonism of early Chinese ecophobia. After Mencius and Dong,
Chinese people came to believe that human beings were no longer
dominated by fear of and antagonism toward nature. As long as
humans act according to their own nature, nonhuman nature will ap-
preciate and protect them.
Unfortunately, the Confucian refinement of “Tianren Heyi” is a
mere linguistic imposition of benevolence, not a real achievement of
ecological harmony. Human nature is not purely benevolent (to put it
mildly). There is nothing benevolent about ecophobia, and Estok plau-
sibly speculates that there is some genetic basis for ecophobic behavior
(25). Asserting the natural benevolence of humans without acknowl-
edging their inherited ecophobic tendencies results in a “hollow ecol-
ogy” that aggravates rather than mitigates human destructiveness. The
naïve Mencian faith in benevolence is a harmful doctrine since it blinds
humans to their destructive activities. Chinese believers in “Tianren

Heyi” can misread their ruthless exploitation of nature as an apprecia-
tive gift that nature offers them. “Tianren Heyi” also encourages eco-
logical complacency: we need not worry much about environmental

crises or the extinction of the human race so long as we believe that
nonhuman nature shares our benevolent essence. How could naturally
benevolent humans destroy nature and themselves? How could a be-
nevolent nature allow them to do so?
Some scholars regard Mencian “benevolence” and “Tianren Heyi”
as ideological solutions to modern environmental problems. Ji Xianlin,
for instance, advocates “the use of Asian integrated thinking to supple-
ment Western analytical thinking” (16; our trans.). According to Ji, the
Confucian tradition of harmonious benevolence can correct the de-
structive propensities of Western thought. But Ji’s project is misguided.
Skeptical of the usefulness of Confucian ideas, Cai Zhongde notes that
the fundamental purpose of the concept of “Tianren
Heyi” is not to “understand nature.” The thought of
“achieving harmony with nature” is not conducive to
“understanding nature.” Indeed, the effort to under-
stand nature often runs counter to the concept of
“Tianren Heyi.” Thus, it seems that advocating the tradi-
tional Chinese concept of “Tianren Heyi” will generally
fail to change the current bad situation of the world’s
ecology. (11–12; our trans.)
Real ecological change requires real understanding. The Mencian
emphasis on benevolence makes “Tianren Heyi” especially problem-
atic. It is an act of faith, not the fruit of understanding.
Western scholars aware of the limitations of Asian ecological atti-
tudes have not been silent in this debate. William Theodore de Bary, for
example, comments on the apparent similarity between Asian thought
and Western environmental movements:
Ironically, since Oriental philosophies in the form of “na-
ture mysticism” are often seen as a source of inspiration
for such movements, we have the apparent paradox of
the West, with its cultural and political pluralism, taking
over certain aspects of the East Asian tradition, while
modern East Asia, industrialized and commercialized
almost with a vengeance, lags behind in the struggle to
control pollution. In this respect, then, the meeting and
mixing of East and West have already progressed to the
point where modern East Asia may need to catch up
438 I S L E
with some of its best traditions, as exemplified by the

West. (132)
Though it is difficult to prove that an ideology such as “Tianren
Heyi” directly causes the destruction of nature, it has obviously failed

to stop massive environmental devastation in twentieth- and twenty-
first-century China. How is it possible for people who believe in the be-
nevolence of nature to exploit it so violently? Perhaps because the glib
attribution of benevolence to human and nonhuman nature allows
people to indulge in unearned moral satisfaction, which ultimately
facilitates unsustainable economic development.
It would be wrong to blame “Tianren Heyi” for all of modern
China’s environmental problems. Western technologies and the market
capitalism are the major proximate causes of ecological destruction.
But “Tianren Heyi” has been at best impotent to stop such destruction,
at worst, complicit in it. Of course, not all Chinese activity has been en-
vironmentally harmful. Estok notes that “There is an increasing num-
ber of countries that are legislating climate change policies. China, for
instance, is a leader of this movement, with a formal 2014 proposal en-
titled ‘The Act of the People’s Republic of China Addressing Climate
Change’” (76). Now that the United States has renounced world lead-
ership in addressing this problem, our dwindling chances of mitigating
the effects of irreversible global warming may depend disproportion-
ately on China. Though the Chinese government has made some be-
nevolent speech acts, and though its participation in international
affairs may prove environmentally salutary, China remains committed
to wildly unsustainable economic growth. Despite its reputation as a
leading developer of solar energy, China continues to build coal plants
(McGrath). No outside observer who saw, let alone breathed, the air of
present-day Beijing would guess that this was the capital of a nation
committed to the mutual benevolence of humanity and nature.
But perhaps the most disturbing sign of the impotence of “Tianren
Heyi” is the widespread carnivorousness of modern Chinese eating—
at least among the Chinese bourgeoisie. Perhaps no country provides a
more drastic example of what Tony Weis calls “the meatification of
diets” (qtd. in Estok 92). Although China’s “per capita consumption”
of meat still lags well behind that of the United States, the meatification
of Chinese diets has increased abruptly. Using data provided by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Estok
calculates that between 1996 and 2013, Chinese meat consumption
increased “an astounding 1,180.95%” (92). The way the Chinese con-
sume meat certainly differs from the carnivorous practices of the
United States. Diners in a restaurant in the United States will rarely see

Figure 2. A restaurant close to the Macao border in the southern city of Zhuhai.
a fish served with its head. The North American commodification of

meat usually separates the commodity from its origin, effacing the ani-
mal body exploited for the delectation of the human consumer. Guests
at a Chinese restaurant, by contrast, should expect to see fish and birds
served with heads that will stare lifelessly back at their human
exploiters. One might read this cultural difference as a sign that
Chinese carnivores are more enlightened than their North American
counterparts, since the Chinese do not disavow the animal sources of
meat. But the gaze of dead nonhumans is apparently unable to deter
the Chinese from eating them. I propose that it is precisely “Tianren
Heyi” that makes such carnivorousness possible; the complacency of
the Mencian concept encourages an “absolute nonchalance toward
nature’s non-human bodies” (Estok 92). The typical round Chinese din-
ing table, with its rotating platter of visually resplendent animal and
vegetable products, provides a microcosm of world integration, of
“Tianren Heyi.” But who profits from the integration of humanity and
nature? Certainly not dead nonhuman animals. “Tianren Heyi” has
allowed Chinese people to mistake the unilateral human exploitation
of nonhumans for a bilateral exchange of benevolence. The facades of
Chinese restaurants often display pictures of the animals on sale
within—a nonverbal menu.
440 I S L E
A restaurant close to the Macao border in the southern city of

Zhuhai (Figure 2) shows a picture of cattle, goats, snakes, geese, and a
host of other animals peacefully arrayed on a green meadow with blue
mountains and puffy clouds in the distance. The goats do not try to

stomp the snakes, the snakes do not try to bite the geese. All wait, in
placid harmony, to attract the gaze of the human consumer. This is
“Tianren Heyi” as pastoral kitsch. Since Chinese scholars have glossed
“Tianren Heyi” as a “harmonious relationship between humanity and
nature” (Fang 209), we should pursue the implications of the musical
metaphor. “Tianren Heyi” could be helpful if it led humans to act like
jazz musicians improvising harmonies in collaboration with nonhu-
man players; here both humans and nonhumans would express an
agency that would not otherwise be possible. Such a harmony would
resemble the intra-action theorized by Karen Barad (Estok 22, 34). In
practice, however, the Chinese advocates of “Tianren Heyi” have pro-
duced a “hollow ecology”: humans compose the score and force non-
humans to play the baseline. Such folly cannot continue much longer.
As Timothy Morton observes, the Anthropocene is making it increas-
ingly clear to humans that they “are not the conductors of meaning,
not the pianists of the real” (qtd. in Estok 91).
NOTE
1. We would like to thank Dr. Shawn Normandin for his insights and
editorial suggestions.
W O R K S C I T E D
Alaimo, Stacy. Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self.
Indiana UP, 2010.
Cai, Zhongde. “On ‘Tianren Heyi’ – A Discussion with Ji Xianlin.” Traditional
Culture and Modernization 5 (1994): 8–16.
Dong, Zhongshu. New Notes on Chunqiu Fanlu. Commercial Press, 2010.
de Bary, William Theodore. East Asian Civilizations—A Dialogue in Five Stages.
Harvard UP, 1988.
Estok, Simon C. The Ecophobia Hypothesis. Routledge, 2018.
Fan, Wenlan. A General History of China. Beijing Renmin Press, 1978.
Fang, Keli. “Tianren Heyi and the Ecological Wisdom in Ancient China.”
Social Science Front 4 (2003): 207–17.
Feng, Guanghong. “A Cultural Interpretation of ‘Solar Divine Bird’ in Jinsha
Museum.” Journal of Xihua University 26.1 (2007): 15–17.
Ji, Xianlin. “New Interpretation on Tianren Heyi.” Traditional Culture and

Modernization 1 (1993): 9–16.
Ligotti, Thomas. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of
Horror. Hippocampus Press, 2010.
Li, Xueqin, and Ai, Lan. Relics of Chinese Bronzes Collected in Europe. Beijing

Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1995.
McGrath, Matt. “China Coal Power Building Boom Sparks Climate Warning.”
BBC News, 26 Sept. 2018. <https:// www. bbc. com/ news/ science- environ-
ment- 45640706>.
Mencius. Notes and Translations of the Book of Mencius. Trans. Bojun Yang.
Zhonghua Shuju, 1960.
Qu, Aichun. The View of Confucius, Mencius and Xunzi and Their Ecological
Ethics. Jilin UP, 2007.
Rivers, W. H. R. The History of Melanesian Society, vol. 2. Cambridge UP, 1914.
Seiji, Ito. The World of Ghost in the Book of Mountains and Seas. Trans. Liu Ye.
Chinese Folk Literature and Art Publishing House, 1990.
Wang, Jinhe. Study of Children’s Folk Rhymes in Hubei Province. Wuhan UP,
2015.
Wang, Yuzhe. A History of Ancient China. Shanghai Renmin Press, 1999.
Wen, Zhongxiang. “Myth and Reality—on Chinese’s View of Ocean from the
Perspective of Jingwei Filling the Sea.” Qinghai Social Science 5 (2012):
204–09.
Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Harvard UP, 2003.
Ye, Shuxian. Mythological Study on the Origin of Chinese Civilization. Social
Science Literature Publishing House, 2015.
Yuan, Ke. Notes on the Book of Mountains and Seas. Shanghai Classics
Publishing House, 1980.
———. Ancient Chinese Myth. Huaxia Press, 2006.

Ecophobia, "Hollow Ecology," and the Chinese Concept of "Tianren Heyi" (天人合一)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecophobia, "Hollow Ecology," and the Chinese Concept of "Tianren Heyi" (天人合一)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S C H O L A R LY A R T I C L E

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isle/article-abstract/26/2/430/5509492 by Sichuan University user on 29 July 2019