Why were performers in ancient China called part of the “lowest nine classes”? Fundamentally, it was not just simple occupational discrimination, but stemmed from a deeper logic of feudal imperial power exerting control over society: all resources and paths to survival had to have their “strength concentrated through one opening,” tightly held by the court. Any group that could detach from the system and make a living on its own would often be suppressed and looked down upon. Performers fit precisely this kind of group. They did not rely on land or attach themselves to the bureaucracy; instead, they could earn income through their skills and performances. Moreover, they were highly mobile, making them difficult to incorporate into the household registration and tax system, and they could even sway people’s hearts through their works—touching the most sensitive boundaries of those in power.

Similar groups included people living on the water, merchants, wandering knights, and artisans. Their common trait was that they possessed a comparatively independent ability to survive, which is why their status was deliberately kept low within the system. By contrast, those who depended entirely on support from the court and institutional pathways for survival—such as military households, scholar-officials, and farmers—were more easily brought into the ruling framework.

Thus, it is clear that the “low status” of performers was not due to any lack of capability or value. It was because they were too “independent,” and that kind of independence was exactly what feudal power was most unwilling to see.