We did not cover a lot of new ground this week, but did manage to introduce the basic premise of feudal society.
Imagine you had the following choices at age 16:
Option 1: You have the maximum possibility of social and professional mobility. A variety of opportunities will be open to you. Therefore, there is the possibility of great success and the “life of your dreams.” However, there are no guarantees, and no safety net. What you achieve will be up to you and up to circumstances. Perhaps you fail, and be left destitute with nothing.
Option 2: You will be guaranteed a basic middle class life that conforms to our image of the 1950’s. You will have a house, 2 cars, and 2.5 children. You will live in a community where people know you and will look out for you, but your ability to move jobs and locations is significantly restricted. You may not love your job, but it will not be horrible. You will be able to work at your job for many years and retire modestly.
What would you choose? Most students chose door #1, but some definitely preferred the security of #2.
Neither option is right or wrong per se, but each option does reflect different values. We distribute the benefits of each this way:
The Modern West
- Stability and Security
- A sense of “place,” a “rhythm of life”
When I surveyed the students about the jobs of their parents, many of them had held at least 2-3 different ones over their lives already, and this represents a slight difference, I think, from my parents generation. Many of my friends that are my age have already held 2-3 different jobs. It seems that are moving more and more in the direction of increased social mobility, which may translate into a lesser degree of social stability. If I’m right we will have to wait and see what this will mean for us in the future.
Whatever we choose, we must realize that to some extent these choice are mutually exclusive. We cannot have unlimited opportunity and a maximum amount of security. We cannot have strong communities and great mobility. We must choose, and whatever our choice, we need to own the consequences of those choices.
For example, there is much that we find distasteful about the feudal idea of birth and class. It runs directly counter to many ideas we hold dear. But to be born into nobility was to be born into responsibility. You would have many tenants on the land, but their condition reflected on you. At least in theory, a sense of mutual obligation existed between noble and peasant.
Today we have (in theory) no difference in class, but also no sense of obligation to others, and our physical mobility makes it hard for many of us to connect in our neighborhoods. This leads us to rely a great deal on money as a means of security, as we have no “social network” to fall back upon. Our societies do have places and programs for the poor, but as they are often run by the state, they can have a distinctly impersonal feel to them. Plus, most of us do not interact with the poor on any regular basis, whereas in medieval times, the poor had a much greater chance to be part of a community.
A key to understanding medieval society is the idea of “knowing one’s place.” We can imagine the evil person in every Disney movie telling some plucky young child to “know your place,” but it had a different connotation in the medieval period. The medieval view of society resembled something of a jig-saw puzzle. No matter how unique each piece might be, it has a specific role within the whole. When Jesus says, “the poor you will always have with you,”
- We would say that the poor will always be with you because of social injustice, economic injustice, or the presence of sin in general, while
- Medievals probably would argue that we will always have the poor because we will always need opportunities to exercise charity (the poor demonstrate the virtue of humility in receiving charity), just as some have money in order to exercise liberality. Both are necessary because both are meant to image/reflect different aspects of the Christian life to us.
I do not mean here to romanticize feudal society, but only to point out that their structure gave them a good chance of doing some things better than the modern west does currently.