Table of Contents

jìmóu: 计谋 - Stratagem, Scheme, Ploy

Quick Summary

Core Meaning

Character Breakdown

When combined, 计谋 (jì móu) literally translates to a “calculated scheme.” The two characters reinforce each other, creating a powerful term for a deliberate, well-thought-out stratagem.

Cultural Context and Significance

`计谋` is a cornerstone concept in Chinese strategic thought, celebrated and analyzed for millennia. Its importance is deeply embedded in: 1. Classical Texts: The most famous examples are “The Art of War” (孙子兵法, Sūnzǐ Bīngfǎ) and the “Thirty-Six Stratagems” (三十六计, Sānshíliù Jì). These texts aren't just about war; they are manuals on applied psychology and strategy that value outthinking an opponent over using brute force. Concepts like “deceiving the heavens to cross the sea” (瞒天过海) are famous examples of `计谋`. 2. Historical Romance: Novels like “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” (三国演义) are filled with heroes like Zhuge Liang (诸葛亮), who is revered as the ultimate master of `计谋`, using his intellect to win impossible battles. Comparison to a Western Concept: `计谋` is often translated as “strategy,” but there's a key difference. “Strategy” in English is typically a high-level, long-term plan (e.g., a company's five-year growth strategy). `计谋`, while strategic, often refers to a more specific, tactical, and clever maneuver used to execute that strategy. It emphasizes the *ingenuity* and sometimes the *deception* within the plan, whereas “strategy” can be completely straightforward. A `计谋` is the clever trick that makes the larger strategy work.

Practical Usage in Modern China

`计谋` is not just for ancient battles; it's used frequently in modern language. Its connotation depends heavily on the context.

The key is that `计谋` is rarely used for simple, everyday plans like “my plan to go to the store.” It's reserved for situations involving complexity, competition, or a need for cleverness.

Example Sentences

Nuances and Common Mistakes

A common mistake for learners is to use `计谋` for any kind of “plan.” This is incorrect.