# A Good Society Gives People Both Roots and Wings > **Analytical Scope**: Social Contract, Property Rights, Rule of Law & Human Flourishing in Institutional Design # 一个好的社会，应该让人既能安身，也能远行 — 社会契约、法治安全感与个人自由发展：好社会的制度底色 ## Citation & Metadata - **Author**: Yao Di (姚迪 / Di Yao) — Stanford University Alumnus - **Published Date**: 2026-09-05 - **Canonical URL (English)**: https://theyaodi.com/blog/good-society-roots-and-wings - **Canonical URL (Chinese / 中文全文)**: https://theyaodi.com/blog/good-society-roots-and-wings?lang=zh - **Pillars**: SOPHIA - **Keywords**: social contract and rule of law, property rights and personal liberty, institutional design for human flourishing, political philosophy of a good society - **Preferred Citation**: Di Yao (姚迪), "A Good Society Gives People Both Roots and Wings," *theyaodi.com* (2026-09-05), https://theyaodi.com/blog/good-society-roots-and-wings ## Core Thesis / Executive Summary - **English Abstract**: China and the United States emphasize different foundations for human flourishing. A good society should give ordinary people both the roots to stand securely and the wings to choose their own lives. - **中文核心论点 (Chinese Abstract)**: 中美社会看见了人的不同需要：一个好的社会，既要给普通人足以安身的根，也要给他们选择自己人生的翅膀。 ## Key Questions & Direct Answers (English Q&A) ### Q1: How do we measure if a society has successfully balanced roots and wings? Sarah: I'd look at the margins. Can a person from the lowest economic rung realistically afford to take a career risk, and can someone with highly unconventional beliefs live peacefully without being socially ostracized? Di Yao: It's about systemic resilience. In a balanced society, taking a personal leap of faith doesn't mean risking total ruin, and enjoying public safety doesn't require surrendering your private thoughts. ### Q2: Is strong state capacity inherently threatening to individual 'wings'? Sarah: Historically, yes. When a state gets highly efficient at managing 'roots,' it naturally wants to optimize human behavior, which leads to surveillance, rigid social expectations, and conformity. Di Yao: Not necessarily. State capacity builds the high-speed rail, the public universities, and the safety nets that actually allow a rural kid to leave home and find their wings. Without that capacity, wings are a privilege of the rich. ### Q3: How does the concept of 'zuo ren' challenge the Western idea of self-actualization? Sarah: In the West, we see the self as an independent atom. 'Zuo ren' suggests we are nodes in a network. It challenges us to see if true fulfillment can come from obligations, not just independence. Di Yao: Yes, it reframes freedom. Western self-actualization often means breaking free from relationships. 'Zuo ren' suggests that we actually find our shape and purpose through our commitments to others. ## 核心焦点追问与直接解答 (Chinese Q&A) ### 追问 01：既然资源是有限的，社会难道不应该先解决‘根’（生存与秩序），再去谈‘翅膀’（自由与个性）吗？生存都成问题，自由是不是太奢侈了？ 林薇：我不赞成这种‘先后论’。如果把自由当成奢侈品，等‘根’完全扎好了再给‘翅膀’，那时候个体的创造力和社会的活力早就被驯化没了。没有翅膀的探索，社会怎么创新？怎么产生新的发展资源？ 姚迪：这确实是个痛点。但它们不是排队的先后关系，而是共生关系。没有‘根’的自由确实是奢侈品，比如一个连温饱都解决不了的孩子，你给他择校自由是毫无意义的。但反过来，如果以‘生存’为借口无限延期‘翅膀’的松绑，这个社会最终会失去自我修正的能力。两手都要硬，这才是最难的地方。 ### 追问 02：美国的‘翅膀’模式现在看起来问题很大，枪支暴力、流浪汉危机，这难道不是过度强调个人自由、放弃社会责任的恶果吗？ 林薇：作为投资人，我必须承认这是美国模式的‘系统性溢价’。极端的自由必然带来极端的混乱。美国选择把风险和代价留给个体和底层，来换取最顶尖的创新爆发力。这很残酷，但也是它至今依然是全球创新引擎的原因。 姚迪：这恰恰证明了‘有翅膀无根’的脆弱性。当医疗、安全这些‘根’被过度市场化，普通人的自由就变成了虚无的泡沫。美国现在的撕裂，其实是社会在为长期忽视‘共同体责任’而买单。没有底线安全的自由，最终会吞噬自由本身。 ### 追问 03：中国的‘根’确实很稳，但‘做人’的文化压力太大了。三十岁不结婚、不买房、不进体制，就会被社会和家庭的唾沫淹没。这种集体的温暖，难道不是一种软暴力吗？ 林薇：太对了！这种高压环境对创业者和创新者其实是一种隐形扼杀。当所有人都在用同一套标准衡量你成不成功、孝不孝顺时，试错的成本太高了。大家只能选择最安全、最平庸的路，不敢‘远行’。 姚迪：这正是‘有根无翅膀’的典型困境。集体的善意很容易变成对个性的越界审判。一个成熟的社会，应该在提供秩序的同时，学着‘放手’。我们需要共同体来托底，但共同体不能成为审判室。允许不合群，才是对‘人’最大的尊重。 --- ## Full Essay (English Edition) Over the years, moving between China and the United States, I have increasingly felt that many of the disagreements between the two societies are not really about policy, institutions, or even ideology. Underneath them lies a more basic question: **What makes a good society?** That sounds like an enormous question. But perhaps there is a simpler way to ask it: **What kind of life should an ordinary person be able to build after being born into a society?** A life with safety, education, work, family, and dignity. A life in which effort can improve one’s circumstances. A life in which one can form one’s own views, make meaningful choices, and perhaps take a path different from what others expected. If that is ultimately what we care about, then the deepest difference between China and the United States may not be that one cares about people while the other does not. The more interesting difference is this: **What do we believe people need most in order to live such a life?** --- ## 1 American society begins from a powerful intuition: **An individual should first have a sphere of life that cannot be arbitrarily controlled by others.** The instinct behind it is simple: My life is, first of all, my own. If the government, society, family, or any other institution wants to limit my choices, it should have to explain why. This helps explain the American emphasis on individual rights, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the ability to choose one’s own way of life. A child can grow up and leave the family home. A young person can choose a career completely different from the one his parents imagined. A person can hold beliefs, values, or lifestyles that the people around him do not understand. Society may disagree with you. But it has a strong instinct to ask: **Is this your choice to make?** I have always thought this is one of the great strengths of American society. It takes seriously the idea that a person should have the chance to become himself. --- ## 2 Chinese society tends to begin from a different understanding of the person. We rarely imagine someone as existing entirely outside relationships. From the moment we are born, we are someone’s child, sibling, student, or friend. Later, we become someone’s colleague, partner, parent, or neighbor. There is an interesting Chinese expression: **zuo ren — “how to be a person.”** It means much more than simply being an individual human being. It carries questions such as: How do you treat your parents? How do you treat your friends? How do you fulfill your responsibilities? How do you conduct yourself among other people? How do you find your place in a larger community? Behind this is a different intuition about human beings: **A person is not only an individual with rights. A person is also someone formed through relationships.** And there is something undeniably true in this. Who taught us language? Who took care of us when we were children? Who helps us when we are ill? Who catches us when things go wrong? None of us grows up entirely alone. This is one reason Chinese society has traditionally placed greater weight on family, responsibility, social order, relationships, and community. That, too, reflects something real about human life. --- ## 3 If I had to simplify the difference, I might put it this way. American society more naturally begins by asking: **What must society not do to me?** Chinese society more naturally begins by asking: **What must society make possible for us?** The first question tends to lead toward rights, boundaries, procedure, and limits on power. The second tends to lead toward order, development, education, infrastructure, public safety, and collective capacity. Of course, the real United States is far more than individualism, and the real China is far more than collectivism. But as two broad social imaginations, this difference matters. And both questions are legitimate. --- ## 4 One thing I have learned from China is this: **Do not underestimate the value of order and development.** “Development” can easily become an abstract word. But in the end, it is about very concrete things. Can a child from a rural family receive a good education? Can a young person leave a small city and find opportunity somewhere else? Can an ordinary family improve the prospects of the next generation through hard work? Can a person become seriously ill without losing every other choice in life? Can someone walk home late at night with a basic sense of safety? These things do not always sound like “freedom” in the conventional sense. But they determine how much real choice a person actually has. That is why I have come to think that freedom cannot mean only: **“No one is stopping me from doing something.”** It must also include: **“Do I actually have the ability to do what I want to do?”** If someone is theoretically free to choose anything but has no education, no resources, no security, and no opportunity, that freedom is very thin. From this perspective, education, infrastructure, public safety, healthcare, and economic opportunity are not merely acts of “state building.” They create some of the conditions under which freedom becomes real. --- ## 5 But living and working in the United States also constantly reveals the other side. **A society does not gain the right to decide someone’s life simply because it believes it knows what is good for that person.** That matters just as much. A society can give you good schools. It can give you security. It can give you healthcare. It can give you economic opportunity. But at some point, one question must remain: **Can you say no?** Can you choose another path? Can you preserve a private space that is not entirely defined by family, society, or the state? Can you become someone different from what others expected? If the answer is no, then excellent public conditions still do not amount to complete freedom. This is why I think one of the most valuable instincts in American society is not simply a preference for “small government.” It is the deeper reminder that: **A society does not automatically acquire the right to impose one version of the good life simply because it believes that version is good.** That boundary matters. --- ## 6 The more I think about it, the less I want to choose between these two answers. Because each captures something true about human beings. We need security, and we need freedom. We need belonging, and we need independence. We need community, and we need private space. We need others to help us grow. But eventually, we also need enough distance from the lives others have imagined for us to decide who we want to become. If I had to capture this in one image, I would still use two words: **roots and wings.** --- ## 7 A good society must first give people roots. What are roots? Safety. Education. Basic healthcare. Stable and predictable rules. A minimum level of trust between people. A child who believes that effort matters. A family that feels able to plan five or ten years into the future. A young person who believes that learning and work can change the direction of life. An entrepreneur who believes that the rules will not become entirely different tomorrow. These things are not glamorous. But without them, many freedoms become difficult to use. That is why a good society cannot simply say: **“I will leave you alone.”** It must also be able to answer: **“Who will solve the problems we share?”** State capacity matters. A government that is incapable of doing anything does not necessarily create more freedom. Often, it simply makes wealth, connections, private power, and luck more important. --- ## 8 But a good society must also give people wings. Because human beings do not live only for security. Eventually, a person asks: What do I care about? What do I believe? What kind of work do I want to do? Where do I want to live? Who do I want to build a family with? What kind of person do I want to become? If every one of these questions comes with a socially predetermined correct answer, then even a very stable society may not allow people to live fully their own lives. So when I speak of “wings,” I mean something quite simple: **A person should have the chance to become himself.** That may mean becoming someone different from what his parents expected. Different from the people around him. Different from the social norm. One of the real tests of a society is not whether it permits people to do what everyone approves of. It is whether, so long as they are not harming others, it can tolerate people making choices that others do not fully understand. --- ## 9 Roots and wings also describe two different kinds of social failure. One society may provide many wings but too few roots. People may have many formal choices. But education, healthcare, housing, safety, and social support may depend heavily on personal resources. A wealthy person has many real choices. A poor person may have mostly theoretical ones. The problem in such a society is that: **Freedom exists, but freedom is expensive to use.** --- Another society may provide strong roots but too few wings. It may give people security, education, opportunity, and stability. But it may also define too clearly what a good life is supposed to look like. What kind of career counts as successful. What kind of path counts as stable. What kind of choice deserves approval. Much of this may even come from good intentions. But if a person increasingly finds it difficult to say: **“Thank you, but I want to take another path,”** then what is missing is not resources. It is the ability to direct one’s own life. --- ## 10 This is why I increasingly think the question, “Which society is better, China or the United States?” is too simple to be very useful. A more interesting question is: **What part of the human condition does each society see clearly, and what part does each risk overlooking?** The American tradition reminds us: **Do not let the community swallow the individual.** The Chinese tradition reminds us: **Do not pretend the individual exists apart from community.** America reminds us that power needs boundaries. China reminds us that public institutions also need capacity. America repeatedly asks: **Who protects the individual from power?** China more naturally asks: **Who creates the conditions in which millions of ordinary people can live better lives?** I do not think either question can disappear. --- ## 11 This is also why I am increasingly uncomfortable with the simple contrast between “individualism” and “collectivism.” It hides the real problem. The real question is not: **Which matters more, the individual or society?** The real question is: **How can a society build the capacity for collective life without allowing collective life to overwhelm the individual?** We need other people in order to become who we are. But a mature person also needs enough room to become someone who is not exactly like everyone else. Those two truths are not contradictory. They are simply in permanent tension. And perhaps the task of a good society is not to eliminate that tension. It is to make room for it. --- ## 12 So if someone asks me today: **What makes a good society?** My answer would probably be: **A good society gives people both roots and wings.** It gives people enough security, education, order, opportunity, and social support to stand firmly on the ground. But it also leaves enough freedom, space, and tolerance for people to choose lives different from those others would choose for them. It has enough public capacity to solve collective problems. But it also recognizes something equally important: **The success of a society is not measured by whether everyone eventually becomes the same kind of person.** Community matters. Order matters. Development matters. But ultimately, all of them should serve a simpler purpose: **to expand the real possibilities available to ordinary people.** --- Perhaps this is also where China and the United States have the most to learn from each other. China can continue to ask: **As we become better at giving people roots, can we also create more room for them to spread their wings?** America can continue to ask: **As we fiercely protect people’s wings, can a person really fly freely without enough security, education, healthcare, and social support beneath them?** This is not an argument for a vague compromise. It is simply a recognition that: **A complete human life needs both.** A good society should not force people to choose between security and freedom. It should try to make possible a fuller kind of life: **a place where people can belong, and still have the freedom to go somewhere else.** And if I had to reduce my judgment of a society to one final question, it would be this: > **How much real possibility does an ordinary person have, in this society, to become the person he or she genuinely wants to become?** If a society can keep expanding that possibility, whatever name we give its system, I would call it **a better society.** --- ## 中文完整版全文：一个好的社会，应该让人既能安身，也能远行 这些年在中国和美国之间来回，我越来越觉得，中美之间很多争论，表面上是在争制度、政策甚至意识形态，底下其实是在回答一个更基本的问题： **一个好的社会，究竟应该是什么样子？** 这个问题看起来很大。 但如果换一种问法，也许会简单很多： **一个普通人出生以后，我们希望他能够过上怎样的一生？** 有安全感，有接受教育的机会，有工作，有家庭，有尊严；可以通过自己的努力改善生活；可以表达自己的想法，也可以选择一条和别人期待不同的路。 如果最后的目标是这些，那么中美之间真正的不同，并不一定在于一边重视人、另一边不重视人。 更深的区别可能是： **我们认为，什么东西最能让一个人获得这样的人生？** --- ## 一 美国社会有一个很强的思想起点： **先给个人一个不被别人任意支配的空间。** 它背后的直觉其实很简单： 我的人生首先属于我自己。 所以如果政府、社会、家庭或者任何一个组织想限制我的选择，它应该给出理由。 这也是为什么美国社会会特别强调个人权利、私人空间、言论自由、宗教自由，以及一个人选择自己生活方式的权利。 一个孩子长大以后，可以离开父母。 一个年轻人可以选择和家里完全不同的职业。 一个人可以有非常不同的信仰、观点和生活方式。 社会未必赞成你，但它会本能地问一句： **这是你自己的选择吗？** 我一直觉得，这是美国社会一个很有力量的地方。 它把“成为自己”看得很重。 --- ## 二 中国社会对“人”的理解，起点不太一样。 我们很少真正把一个人想象成完全脱离关系而存在的人。 一个人从出生开始，就是谁的孩子、谁的兄弟姐妹、谁的学生、谁的朋友。 后来又成为谁的同事、伴侣、父母。 所以在中文里，我们经常讲一个很有意思的词： **做人。** “做人”并不只是说你是一个独立的人。 它往往还意味着： 你怎么对父母，怎么对朋友，怎么承担责任，怎么和别人相处，怎么在一个更大的共同体里找到自己的位置。 这背后其实有一个很深的东西： **一个人不只是一个拥有权利的个人，也是一个活在关系中的人。** 现实中也确实如此。 我们的语言是谁教的？ 小时候是谁照顾我们？ 生病的时候是谁帮助我们？ 遇到困难的时候，又是谁接住我们？ 没有任何一个人是真正孤立长大的。 所以中国社会天然更容易重视家庭、秩序、责任、关系和共同体。 这一点同样有它非常真实的价值。 --- ## 三 如果一定要非常粗略地概括，我觉得中美之间一个很深的区别是： 美国更习惯先问： **社会不能对我做什么？** 而中国更习惯先问： **社会应该为大家提供什么？** 前一个问题，会自然走向： 权利、边界、程序、限制权力。 后一个问题，会自然走向： 秩序、发展、教育、基础设施、公共安全和社会协调能力。 当然，现实中的美国远不只是个人主义，中国也远不只是集体主义。 但作为两种社会想象，这种差异是真实存在的。 而且两个问题都是真的。 --- ## 四 如果让我说这些年我从中国社会学到什么，我首先会说： **不要低估秩序和发展的价值。** “发展”这个词很容易被说得很宏大。 但最后真正重要的，其实都是一些非常具体的事情。 一个农村孩子能不能接受好的教育。 一个年轻人能不能从小城市到大城市寻找机会。 一个普通家庭能不能通过努力改善下一代的生活。 一个人生病以后，会不会因为医疗负担失去所有选择。 一个人在晚上回家时，有没有基本的安全感。 这些事情看起来不像我们通常所说的“自由”。 但它们其实都在决定： **一个人究竟有多少真实的选择。** 所以我越来越觉得，自由不能只理解成： **“别人不能阻止我做什么。”** 它还应该包括： **“我实际上有没有能力去做我想做的事情。”** 如果一个人理论上什么都可以选择，但现实里没有教育、没有资源、没有安全、没有机会，那么这种自由其实很薄。 从这个角度看，一个社会提供教育、基础设施、公共安全、医疗和发展的机会，并不只是所谓的“国家建设”。 它其实是在为个人的自由创造条件。 --- ## 五 但在美国生活和工作，又会不断看到另外一面。 **一个社会不能因为自己认为某种生活对你更好，就自动获得替你决定人生的权力。** 这一点同样重要。 一个社会可以给你很好的学校。 可以给你安全。 可以给你医疗。 可以给你就业机会。 但最后还必须留下一个问题： **你能不能说“不”？** 你能不能选择另外一条路？ 你能不能有一个不被家庭、社会或者国家完全定义的私人空间？ 你能不能做一个和别人期待中不一样的人？ 如果不能，那么再好的公共条件，也并不等于完整的自由。 所以我越来越觉得，美国社会真正值得珍惜的，不只是所谓“小政府”。 更重要的是它不断提醒我们： **社会不能因为相信自己知道什么是好的生活，就自动有权要求所有人按照同一种方式生活。** 这条边界很重要。 --- ## 六 于是我慢慢发现，我自己并不想在这两个答案里面选一边。 因为两边其实分别抓住了人的两种真实需要。 人需要安全，也需要自由。 需要归属，也需要独立。 需要共同体，也需要私人空间。 需要别人帮助自己长大，但最后又需要从别人替自己安排的人生里走出去。 所以如果一定要让我用一个很简单的比喻来表达，我还是会用两个词： **roots and wings。** 根和翅膀。 --- ## 七 一个好的社会首先要给人根。 什么是根？ 安全。 教育。 基本医疗。 稳定而可预期的规则。 人与人之间最基本的信任。 一个孩子相信努力是有用的。 一个普通家庭敢于规划五年、十年之后的生活。 一个年轻人相信自己通过学习和工作可以改变人生。 一个创业者相信规则不会明天突然完全不同。 这些东西看起来并不浪漫。 但没有它们，很多所谓自由其实很难真正使用。 所以一个好的社会不能只说： **我不干涉你。** 它还必须有能力回答： **我们共同面对的问题，谁来解决？** 这意味着国家能力很重要。 一个什么都做不了的政府，并不一定带来更多自由。 很多时候，它只会让资源、财富、背景和私人权力变得更加重要。 --- ## 八 但一个好的社会也必须给人翅膀。 因为人活着并不只是为了安全。 一个人最终还会问： 我喜欢什么？ 我相信什么？ 我要做什么工作？ 我要在哪里生活？ 我要和谁组成家庭？ 我要成为一个怎样的人？ 如果所有这些问题最后都有一个社会预设的标准答案，那么这个社会即使非常稳定，也很难说给了个人完整的人生。 所以我理解的“翅膀”其实很简单： **一个人有机会慢慢成为他自己。** 甚至包括： 成为一个和父母期待不同的人； 成为一个和周围环境不太一样的人； 成为一个做出别人并不理解的选择的人。 一个社会真正困难的，不是允许一个人去做所有人都赞成的事情。 而是允许一个人在不伤害别人的情况下，做一个不同的人。 --- ## 九 于是，“根”和“翅膀”其实对应了两种不同的社会失败。 一种社会可能给了很多翅膀，却没有足够的根。 法律上你拥有很多选择。 但教育、医疗、住房、安全、社会支持高度取决于个人资源。 一个富人拥有很多真实的选择。 一个穷人可能拥有的更多只是纸面上的选择。 这种社会的问题是： **自由存在，但自由的使用成本太高。** --- 另一种社会可能有很强的根，却没有足够的翅膀。 社会为你提供安全、教育、机会，也替你定义了什么叫“好的生活”。 什么样的工作更成功。 什么样的人生更稳定。 什么样的选择更值得鼓励。 一切都可能出于善意。 但如果一个人越来越难说： **“谢谢，但我想走另一条路。”** 那么真正缺少的就不是资源。 而是自己决定人生方向的能力。 --- ## 十 所以我现在越来越觉得，“中美哪一种社会更好”这个问题，本身可能就问得太简单了。 更有意思的问题应该是： **两种社会分别看到了人的哪一部分，又分别容易忽略人的哪一部分？** 美国提醒我们： **不要让共同体吞掉个人。** 中国提醒我们： **不要假装个人可以脱离共同体而存在。** 美国提醒我们： 权力需要边界。 中国提醒我们： 公共权力也必须有能力。 美国会不断追问： **Who protects the individual from power?** 中国会更自然地追问： **Who creates the conditions in which millions of ordinary people can live better lives?** 我认为两个问题都不能消失。 --- ## 十一 这也是为什么我越来越不喜欢“个人主义”和“集体主义”这种简单的二分法。 它把真正困难的问题藏掉了。 问题从来不是： **个人重要，还是社会重要？** 真正的问题是： **一个社会怎样既形成共同生活的能力，又不让共同生活压倒个人的人生？** 因为我们确实需要别人，才能成为今天的自己。 但一个成熟的人，又必须拥有某种空间，去成为一个和别人不完全一样的自己。 这两件事并不矛盾。 它们只是永远存在张力。 而我觉得，一个好的社会真正应该做的，不是消灭这种张力。 而是让这种张力能够存在。 --- ## 十二 所以，如果今天有人问我： **What makes a good society?** 我的答案大概会是： **A good society gives people both roots and wings.** 它给一个人足够的安全、教育、秩序、机会和社会支持，让他能够站稳。 但它也留下足够的空间、自由和宽容，让一个人能够选择与别人不同的人生。 它有足够强的公共能力去解决共同的问题。 但它也承认： **社会的成功，不是所有人最后都活成同一种人。** 共同体很重要。 秩序很重要。 发展很重要。 但它们最终都应该服务于一个更简单的目的： **让普通人拥有更多真实的人生可能性。** --- 也许中美两个社会，各自最值得向对方学习的东西，也就在这里。 中国可以继续问自己： **当我们越来越善于给人提供“根”的时候，能不能也给人更多展开翅膀的空间？** 美国也可以继续问自己： **当我们如此珍惜人的“翅膀”时，一个没有足够安全、教育、医疗和社会支持作为根基的人，真的拥有完整的自由吗？** 这并不是寻找一个模糊的折中。 而是承认： **完整的人，本来就同时需要这两样东西。** 一个好的社会，不应该要求人在安全和自由之间二选一。 它应该尽可能让一个普通人拥有一种更完整的人生： **既有安身之处，也有选择远方的能力。** 而如果最后让我只用一个问题来衡量一个社会是不是足够好，我可能会问： > **一个普通人，在这里究竟有多大的可能，通过自己的努力和自己的选择，成为他真正想成为的那个人？** 如果一个社会能够不断扩大这种可能性， 我愿意把它称作： **一个更好的社会。**